key elements of literature review

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved March 20, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

The Research Proposal

83 Components of the Literature Review

Krathwohl (2005) suggests and describes a variety of components to include in a research proposal.  The following sections present these components in a suggested template for you to follow in the preparation of your research proposal.

Introduction

The introduction sets the tone for what follows in your research proposal – treat it as the initial pitch of your idea.  After reading the introduction your reader should:

• Understand what it is you want to do;
• Have a sense of your passion for the topic;
• Be excited about the study´s possible outcomes.

As you begin writing your research proposal it is helpful to think of the introduction as a narrative of what it is you want to do, written in one to three paragraphs.  Within those one to three paragraphs, it is important to briefly answer the following questions:

• What is the central research problem?
• How is the topic of your research proposal related to the problem?
• What methods will you utilize to analyze the research problem?
• Why is it important to undertake this research? What is the significance of your proposed research?  Why are the outcomes of your proposed research important, and to whom or to what are they important?

Note : You may be asked by your instructor to include an abstract with your research proposal.  In such cases, an abstract should provide an overview of what it is you plan to study, your main research question, a brief explanation of your methods to answer the research question, and your expected findings. All of this information must be carefully crafted in 150 to 250 words.  A word of advice is to save the writing of your abstract until the very end of your research proposal preparation.  If you are asked to provide an abstract, you should include 5-7 key words that are of most relevance to your study. List these in order of relevance.

Background and significance

The purpose of this section is to explain the context of your proposal and to describe, in detail, why it is important to undertake this research. Assume that the person or people who will read your research proposal know nothing or very little about the research problem.  While you do not need to include all knowledge you have learned about your topic in this section, it is important to ensure that you include the most relevant material that will help to explain the goals of your research.

While there are no hard and fast rules, you should attempt to address some or all of the following key points:

• State the research problem and provide a more thorough explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction.
• Present the rationale for the proposed research study. Clearly indicate why this research is worth doing.  Answer the “so what?” question.
• Describe the major issues or problems to be addressed by your research. Do not forget to explain how and in what ways your proposed research builds upon previous related research.
• Explain how you plan to go about conducting your research.
• Clearly identify the key or most relevant sources of research you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Set the boundaries of your proposed research, in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you will study, but what will be excluded from your study.
• Provide clear definitions of key concepts and terms. As key concepts and terms often have numerous definitions, make sure you state which definition you will be utilizing in your research.

Literature Review

This is the most time-consuming aspect in the preparation of your research proposal and it is a key component of the research proposal. As described in Chapter 5 , the literature review provides the background to your study and demonstrates the significance of the proposed research. Specifically, it is a review and synthesis of prior research that is related to the problem you are setting forth to investigate.  Essentially, your goal in the literature review is to place your research study within the larger whole of what has been studied in the past, while demonstrating to your reader that your work is original, innovative, and adds to the larger whole.

As the literature review is information dense, it is essential that this section be intelligently structured to enable your reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your study. However, this can be easier to state and harder to do, simply due to the fact there is usually a plethora of related research to sift through. Consequently, a good strategy for writing the literature review is to break the literature into conceptual categories or themes, rather than attempting to describe various groups of literature you reviewed.  Chapter V, “ The Literature Review ,” describes a variety of methods to help you organize the themes.

Here are some suggestions on how to approach the writing of your literature review:

• Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methods they used, what they found, and what they recommended based upon their findings.
• Do not be afraid to challenge previous related research findings and/or conclusions.
• Assess what you believe to be missing from previous research and explain how your research fills in this gap and/or extends previous research

It is important to note that a significant challenge related to undertaking a literature review is knowing when to stop.  As such, it is important to know how to know when you have uncovered the key conceptual categories underlying your research topic.  Generally, when you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations, you can have confidence that you have covered all of the significant conceptual categories in your literature review.  However, it is also important to acknowledge that researchers often find themselves returning to the literature as they collect and analyze their data.  For example, an unexpected finding may develop as one collects and/or analyzes the data and it is important to take the time to step back and review the literature again, to ensure that no other researchers have found a similar finding.  This may include looking to research outside your field.

This situation occurred with one of the authors of this textbook´s research related to community resilience.  During the interviews, the researchers heard many participants discuss individual resilience factors and how they believed these individual factors helped make the community more resilient, overall.  Sheppard and Williams (2016) had not discovered these individual factors in their original literature review on community and environmental resilience. However, when they returned to the literature to search for individual resilience factors, they discovered a small body of literature in the child and youth psychology field. Consequently, Sheppard and Williams had to go back and add a new section to their literature review on individual resilience factors. Interestingly, their research appeared to be the first research to link individual resilience factors with community resilience factors.

Research design and methods

The objective of this section of the research proposal is to convince the reader that your overall research design and methods of analysis will enable you to solve the research problem you have identified and also enable you to accurately and effectively interpret the results of your research. Consequently, it is critical that the research design and methods section is well-written, clear, and logically organized.  This demonstrates to your reader that you know what you are going to do and how you are going to do it.  Overall, you want to leave your reader feeling confident that you have what it takes to get this research study completed in a timely fashion.

Essentially, this section of the research proposal should be clearly tied to the specific objectives of your study; however, it is also important to draw upon and include examples from the literature review that relate to your design and intended methods.  In other words, you must clearly demonstrate how your study utilizes and builds upon past studies, as it relates to the research design and intended methods.  For example, what methods have been used by other researchers in similar studies?

While it is important to consider the methods that other researchers have employed, it is equally important, if not more so, to consider what methods have not been employed but could be.  Remember, the methods section is not simply a list of tasks to be undertaken. It is also an argument as to why and how the tasks you have outlined will help you investigate the research problem and answer your research question(s).

Tips for writing the research design and methods section:

• Specify the methodological approaches you intend to employ to obtain information and the techniques you will use to analyze the data.
• Specify the research operations you will undertake and he way you will interpret the results of those operations in relation to the research problem.
• Go beyond stating what you hope to achieve through the methods you have chosen. State how you will actually do the methods (i.e. coding interview text, running regression analysis, etc.).
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers you may encounter when undertaking your research and describe how you will address these barriers.
• Explain where you believe you will find challenges related to data collection, including access to participants and information.

Preliminary suppositions and implications

The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you anticipate that your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the area of your study. Depending upon the aims and objectives of your study, you should also discuss how your anticipated findings may impact future research.  For example, is it possible that your research may lead to a new policy, new theoretical understanding, or a new method for analyzing data?  How might your study influence future studies?  What might your study mean for future practitioners working in the field?  Who or what may benefit from your study?  How might your study contribute to social, economic, environmental issues?  While it is important to think about and discuss possibilities such as these, it is equally important to be realistic in stating your anticipated findings.  In other words, you do not want to delve into idle speculation.  Rather, the purpose here is to reflect upon gaps in the current body of literature and to describe how and in what ways you anticipate your research will begin to fill in some or all of those gaps.

The conclusion reiterates the importance and significance of your research proposal and it provides a brief summary of the entire proposed study.  Essentially, this section should only be one or two paragraphs in length. Here is a potential outline for your conclusion:

• Discuss why the study should be done. Specifically discuss how you expect your study will advance existing knowledge and how your study is unique.
• Explain the specific purpose of the study and the research questions that the study will answer.
• Explain why the research design and methods chosen for this study are appropriate, and why other design and methods were not chosen.
• State the potential implications you expect to emerge from your proposed study,
• Provide a sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship currently in existence related to the research problem.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your research proposal.  In a research proposal, this can take two forms: a reference list or a bibliography.  A reference list does what the name suggests, it lists the literature you referenced in the body of your research proposal.  All references in the reference list, must appear in the body of the research proposal.  Remember, it is not acceptable to say “as cited in …”  As a researcher you must always go to the original source and check it for yourself.  Many errors are made in referencing, even by top researchers, and so it is important not to perpetuate an error made by someone else. While this can be time consuming, it is the proper way to undertake a literature review.

In contrast, a bibliography , is a list of everything you used or cited in your research proposal, with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.  In other words, sources cited in your bibliography may not necessarily appear in the body of your research proposal.  Make sure you check with your instructor to see which of the two you are expected to produce.

Overall, your list of citations should be a testament to the fact that you have done a sufficient level of preliminary research to ensure that your project will complement, but not duplicate, previous research efforts. For social sciences, the reference list or bibliography should be prepared in American Psychological Association (APA) referencing format. Usually, the reference list (or bibliography) is not included in the word count of the research proposal. Again, make sure you check with your instructor to confirm.

An Introduction to Research Methods in Sociology by Valerie A. Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE : Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Mar 19, 2024 11:03 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Literature Reviews

• Overview of Literature Reviews and Systematic Reviews
• How to Get Started and Developing a Research Question
• Finding and Evaluating Sources
• Citations This link opens in a new window
• Synthesizing Sources
• Writing the Literature Review
• Systematic Reviews This link opens in a new window
• Suggested Readings
• Elements of a Literature Review
• Introduction
• Reference List

All literature reviews contain the following elements:

See the tabs to right for further explanation of each of these elements.

The introduction to a literature review should include the following:

• Define the topic to provide context for the review
• Identify trends in previous publications
• Give your reasoning for reviewing the literature (Why is it necessary? What is your point of view?)
• Explain the criteria that was used to conduct the search
• Indicate how the review is organized

The body of the literature review will discuss each source. Find patterns and ways to tie the main points together. This can be organized thematically, chronologically, or methodologically.

Thematic-organized around a topic or issue

Chronological-organized according to when the articles were published or according to when trends took place

Methodological-organized by the methods used by the researchers

The conclusion should summarize the literature review. Discuss any implications drawn from the literature and what further research is needed.

A reference list at the end of a literature review is essential. Citing all sources gives credit to the authors of the literature, allows others to find the literature for evaluation or their own research, and helps to avoid plagiarism. For more information on creating a reference list, see our Citation Styles guide.

Adding Content & Organizing the Review

The literature review is about both content and form.  In terms of content, keep in mind that your literature review is intended to:

• Set up a theoretical framework for your own research
• Show a clear understanding of the key concepts/ideas/studies/models related to your topic
• Demonstrate knowledge about the history of your research area and any related controversies
• Illustrate that you are able to evaluate and synthesize the work of others
• Clarify significant definitions and terminology
• Develop a space in your discipline for your research

Some questions to ask yourself when you begin to write your first draft include:

• How will my literature review be organized: Chronologically, thematically, conceptually, methodologically or a combination?
• What section headings will I be using?
• How do the various studies relate to each other?
• What contributions do they make to the field?
• What are the limitations of a study/where are the gaps in the research?
• And finally but most importantly, how does my own research fit into what has already been done?

Some questions to ask after the first draft:

• Is there a logical flow from section to section, paragraph to paragraph, sentence to sentence?
• Does the content proceed from topic to topic?
• Does your conclusion match your introduction?
• Were you consistent in documenting and using the correct citation style?

Attribution

The content of this page was developed from Chapter 8, "Writing a Literature Review" in:

Frederiksen, L., & Phelps, S. F. (2017). Literature reviews for education and nursing graduate students. Rebus Community.  https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/literature-reviews-for-education-and-nursing-graduate-students

• << Previous: Synthesizing Sources
• Next: Systematic Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Nov 30, 2023 1:07 PM
• URL: https://libguides.chapman.edu/literature_reviews

Literature Review: 3 Essential Ingredients

The theoretical framework, empirical research and research gap

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewer: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | July 2023

Writing a comprehensive but concise literature review is no simple task. There’s a lot of ground to cover and it can be challenging to figure out what’s important and what’s not. In this post, we’ll unpack three essential ingredients that need to be woven into your literature review to lay a rock-solid foundation for your study.

This post is based on our popular online course, Literature Review Bootcamp . In the course, we walk you through the full process of developing a literature review, step by step. If it’s your first time writing a literature review, you definitely want to use this link to get 50% off the course (limited-time offer).

Overview: Essential Ingredients

• Ingredients vs structure
• The theoretical framework (foundation of theory)
• The empirical research
• The research gap
• Summary & key takeaways

Ingredients vs Structure

As a starting point, it’s important to clarify that the three ingredients we’ll cover in this video are things that need to feature within your literature review, as opposed to a set structure for your chapter . In other words, there are different ways you can weave these three ingredients into your literature review. Regardless of which structure you opt for, each of the three components will make an appearance in some shape or form. If you’re keen to learn more about structural options, we’ve got a dedicated post about that here .

1. The Theoretical Framework

Let’s kick off with the first essential ingredient – that is the theoretical framework , also called the foundation of theory . 

The foundation of theory, as the name suggests, is where you’ll lay down the foundational building blocks for your literature review so that your reader can get a clear idea of the core concepts, theories and assumptions (in relation to your research aims and questions) that will guide your study. Note that this is not the same as a conceptual framework .

Typically you’ll cover a few things within the theoretical framework:

Firstly, you’ll need to clearly define the key constructs and variables that will feature within your study. In many cases, any given term can have multiple different definitions or interpretations – for example, different people will define the concept of “integrity” in different ways. This variation in interpretation can, of course, wreak havoc on how your study is understood. So, this section is where you’ll pin down what exactly you mean when you refer to X, Y or Z in your study, as well as why you chose that specific definition. It’s also a good idea to state any assumptions that are inherent in these definitions and why these are acceptable, given the purpose of your study.

Related to this, the second thing you’ll need to cover in your theoretical framework is the relationships between these variables and/or constructs . For example, how does one variable potentially affect another variable – does A have an impact on B, B on A, and so on? In other words, you want to connect the dots between the different “things” of interest that you’ll be exploring in your study. Note that you only need to focus on the key items of interest here (i.e. those most central to your research aims and questions) – not every possible construct or variable.

Lastly, and very importantly, you need to discuss the existing theories that are relevant to your research aims and research questions . For example, if you’re investigating the uptake/adoption of a certain application or software, you might discuss Davis’ Technology Acceptance Model and unpack what it has to say about the factors that influence technology adoption. More importantly, though, you need to explain how this impacts your expectations about what you will find in your own study . In other words, your theoretical framework should reveal some insights about what answers you might expect to find to your research questions .

If this sounds a bit fluffy, don’t worry. We deep dive into the theoretical framework (as well as the conceptual framework) and look at practical examples in Literature Review Bootcamp . If you’d like to learn more, take advantage of the limited-time offer (60% off the standard price).

Need a helping hand?

2. The Empirical Research

Onto the second essential ingredient, which is  empirical research . This section is where you’ll present a critical discussion of the existing empirical research that is relevant to your research aims and questions.

But what exactly is empirical research?

Simply put, empirical research includes any study that involves actual data collection and analysis , whether that’s qualitative data, quantitative data, or a mix of both . This contrasts against purely theoretical literature (the previous ingredient), which draws its conclusions based exclusively on logic and reason , as opposed to an analysis of real-world data.

In other words, theoretical literature provides a prediction or expectation of what one might find based on reason and logic, whereas empirical research tests the accuracy of those predictions using actual real-world data . This reflects the broader process of knowledge creation – in other words, first developing a theory and then testing it out in the field.

Long story short, the second essential ingredient of a high-quality literature review is a critical discussion of the existing empirical research . Here, it’s important to go beyond description . You’ll need to present a critical analysis that addresses some (if not all) of the following questions:

• What have different studies found in relation to your research questions ?
• What contexts have (and haven’t been covered)? For example, certain countries, cities, cultures, etc.
• Are the findings across the studies similar or is there a lot of variation ? If so, why might this be the case?
• What sorts of research methodologies have been used and how could these help me develop my own methodology?
• What were the noteworthy limitations of these studies?

Simply put, your task here is to present a synthesis of what’s been done (and found) within the empirical research, so that you can clearly assess the current state of knowledge and identify potential research gaps , which leads us to our third essential ingredient.

The Research Gap

The third essential ingredient of a high-quality literature review is a discussion of the research gap (or gaps).

But what exactly is a research gap?

Simply put, a research gap is any unaddressed or inadequately explored area within the existing body of academic knowledge. In other words, a research gap emerges whenever there’s still some uncertainty regarding a certain topic or question.

For example, it might be the case that there are mixed findings regarding the relationship between two variables (e.g., job performance and work-from-home policies). Similarly, there might be a lack of research regarding the impact of a specific new technology on people’s mental health. On the other end of the spectrum, there might be a wealth of research regarding a certain topic within one country (say the US), but very little research on that same topic in a different social context (say, China).

These are just random examples, but as you can see, research gaps can emerge from many different places. What’s important to understand is that the research gap (or gaps) needs to emerge from your previous discussion of the theoretical and empirical literature . In other words, your discussion in those sections needs to start laying the foundation for the research gap.

For example, when discussing empirical research, you might mention that most studies have focused on a certain context , yet very few (or none) have focused on another context, and there’s reason to believe that findings may differ. Or you might highlight how there’s a fair deal of mixed findings and disagreement regarding a certain matter. In other words, you want to start laying a little breadcrumb trail in those sections so that your discussion of the research gap is firmly rooted in the rest of the literature review.

But why does all of this matter?

Well, the research gap should serve as the core justification for your study . Through your literature review, you’ll show what gaps exist in the current body of knowledge, and then your study will then attempt to fill (or contribute towards filling) one of those gaps. In other words, you’re first explaining what the problem is (some sort of gap) and then proposing how you’ll solve it.

Key Takeaways

To recap, the three ingredients that need to be mixed into your literature review are:

• The foundation of theory or theoretical framework
• The empirical or evidence-based research

As we mentioned earlier, these are components of a literature review and not (necessarily) a structure for your literature review chapter. Of course, you can structure your chapter in a way that reflects these three components (in fact, in some cases that works very well), but it’s certainly not the only option. The right structure will vary from study to study , depending on various factors.

If you’d like to get hands-on help developing your literature review, be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the entire research journey, step by step. 

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling Udemy Course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

very good , as the first writer of the thesis i will need ur advise . please give me a piece of idea on topic -impact of national standardized exam on students learning engagement . Thank you .

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

• What is a literature review?
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• You may need to some exploratory searching of the literature to get a sense of scope, to determine whether you need to narrow or broaden your focus
• Identify databases that provide the most relevant sources, and identify relevant terms (controlled vocabularies) to add to your search strategy
• Finalize your research question
• Think about relevant dates, geographies (and languages), methods, and conflicting points of view
• Conduct searches in the published literature via the identified databases
• Check to see if this topic has been covered in other discipline's databases
• Examine the citations of on-point articles for keywords, authors, and previous research (via references) and cited reference searching.
• Save your search results in a citation management tool (such as Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote)
• De-duplicate your search results
• Make sure that you've found the seminal pieces -- they have been cited many times, and their work is considered foundational 
• Check with your professor or a librarian to make sure your search has been comprehensive
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of individual sources and evaluate for bias, methodologies, and thoroughness
• Group your results in to an organizational structure that will support why your research needs to be done, or that provides the answer to your research question  
• Develop your conclusions
• Are there gaps in the literature?
• Where has significant research taken place, and who has done it?
• Is there consensus or debate on this topic?
• Which methodological approaches work best?
• For example: Background, Current Practices, Critics and Proponents, Where/How this study will fit in 
• Organize your citations and focus on your research question and pertinent studies
• Compile your bibliography

Note: The first four steps are the best points at which to contact a librarian. Your librarian can help you determine the best databases to use for your topic, assess scope, and formulate a search strategy.

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

This 4.5 minute video from Academic Education Materials has a Creative Commons License and a British narrator.

Recommended Reading

• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to content

A basic guide to writing a literature review

In this article, we provide a short guide for writing a literature review. If you’re interested in a tool that helps you write & organize your research literature,  click here  to read more about   Avidnote .

A literature review is a type of paper that encompasses a critical summary and analysis of the most important writings on a particular topic. It’s like a report card for your research: it assesses the quality and originality of your work and determines whether you’re on the right track. Writing a literature review can be a daunting task, but with a little guidance, it doesn’t have to be. In this blog post, we’ll give you a basic overview of how to write a literature review, from brainstorming to editing. By the end, you’ll have all the tools you need to start writing your own literature review.

What is a literature review?

A literature review surveys academic knowledge on a topic. It is used to create a research question, provide support for a thesis statement, and assistance in answering a research question. Literature reviews are written in APA format. The purpose of a literature review is to: -Identify gaps in existing research on a topic -Provide an overview of existing research on a topic -Critique existing research on a topic -Identify areas for further research on a topic

Why write a literature review?

A literature review has three main purposes: -To find out what is already known about a particular topic or question -To identify gaps in knowledge -To inform the reader about the current state of research on a topic In order to write a good literature review, you must first decide on your topic, then find and read the relevant literature. Once you have done this, you can begin to analyze and synthesize the information you have found. Finally, you can write your literature review, drawing on what you have learned from the relevant literature.

What are the benefits of writing a literature review?

There are many benefits to writing a literature review, from improving your research skills to gaining a better understanding of the field you are studying. A literature review can also be a valuable tool in identifying potential gaps in the existing research. One of the most important benefits of writing a literature review is that it can help you to identify gaps in the existing research. This is important because it allows you to focus your own research on filling these gaps. It can also help you to avoid duplicating work that has already been done by other researchers. Another benefit of writing a literature review is that it can help you to improve your research skills. This is because literature reviews require you to search for and critically evaluate existing research. This process can help you to develop your own research skills, including your ability to find and use relevant sources of information. Writing a literature review can also be beneficial in terms of gaining a better understanding of the field you are studying. This is because literature reviews provide an overview of the latest thinking in a particular subject area. This can be especially useful if you are new to a field, or if you are interested in keeping up with current thinking on a particular topic.

How to write a literature review?

Once you have determined your audience, you can then decide what type of literature review is appropriate. For example, if you are writing for academics or researchers who are familiar with the existing body of work on your topic, you may only need to provide a traditional literature review that sums up what has been previously published. However, if you are writing for practitioners or policy-makers who are less familiar with the existing research on your topic, then you will need to provide more background information and include more detailed summaries of each source in your literature review. No matter what type of audience you are writing for or what type of literature review you create, there are several key elements that all literature reviews should include:

• An overview or summary of the field/topic under investigation;
• An assessment or evaluation of the current state of research on the field/topic;
• An identification or discussion of significant gaps in current knowledge; A critical analysis or synthesis of current research trends;
• An identification or discussion potential future directions for research;
• And finally, implications for practice or policy based on your findings.

What are the key elements of a literature review?

While there is no one formula for writing a literature review, most literature reviews include the following key elements:

• An introduction that provides an overview of the topic under investigation and puts it into context.
• A description of the research design or general approach used to guide the reading and analysis of the literature (this may be organized chronologically, by subjects, by theoretical framework, etc.).
• A summary of the main themes or arguments emerging from your critical review of the literature.
• An evaluation of the current state of research on the topic, including a discussion of any gaps in existing knowledge.
• A reflection on how the current state of research relates to your own research project.
• An identification of future directions for research on the topic.

How to structure a literature review?

Your literature review should have a strong structure, and this is where you need to think carefully about your argument. Remember that the main purpose of a literature review is to demonstrate what existing knowledge is out there on your topic, and to evaluate it. This means that you should focus on critical writing, rather than simply providing a summary of what others have written. The structure of your literature review will depend on the style of writing you are using. For example, if you are writing a traditional overview paper, you might structure your literature review like this: Introduction : -Provide an introduction to the topic, and explain why it is important. -Introduce the existing knowledge on the topic, and identify any gaps in that knowledge. -Explain how your literature review will fill those gaps. Body paragraphs: – each body paragraph should focus on one particular aspect of the existing knowledge on your topic. For example, you might discuss:

• How different authors have approached the topic
• What theoretical frameworks have been used
• What methodologies have been employed
• What themes or patterns have emerged from the research
• What unsolved problems or unanswered questions remain in the field

Conclusion : summarise what has been covered in your literature review, and reiterate its importance for further research in the field.

What are the common mistakes to avoid when writing a literature review?

There are several common mistakes that students make when writing a literature review. Here are the most common ones: 1. Not reading the entire work. When you are assigned a literature review, you should always read the entire work before writing your review. This will give you a better understanding of the author’s argument and what to focus on in your own review. 2. Not critically evaluating the sources. A literature review is not simply a summary of the sources you have read. You should provide a critical evaluation of each source, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. Your opinion on the quality of the research is just as important as the facts you include. 3. Relying too heavily on one source. When writing a literature review, it is important to use a variety of sources. This will help to ensure that your review is well-rounded and comprehensive. If you rely too heavily on one source, you may miss important points that could be made by other authors. 4. Plagiarism Plagiarism is when you use someone else’s words or ideas without giving them credit. This is a serious academic offense that can result in a failing grade or even expulsion from school. When writing a literature review, be sure to use your own words and cite all of your sources properly to avoid plagiarism

How to get started with writing a literature review?

A literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, dissertations, conference proceedings and other resources which are relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory and provides context for a researcher’s own work. The purpose of a literature review is to: -Demonstrate that you have an understanding of the existing research on your topic; -Identify any gaps in this research; -Relate your topic to the broader field of study; -Provide a theoretical framework for your research; -Identify any key researchers in your field. To write a literature review you must first decide: – What form the review will take – will it be a simple overview of the literature or will it have a more rigid structure? – How you will organize the review – thematically, chronologically or by methodology? – What type of sources you will include – primary, secondary or both?

When you have answers to these questions you can begin searching for sources. Once you have found and read some relevant sources you can begin writing your literature review.

✅  Also check out

This post was produced as part of a research guide series by  Avidnote  which is a free web-based app that helps you to write and organize your academic writing online.  Click here  to find out more.

You may also like

How to improve your h-index

How to write a methods section of a research paper

Privacy overview.

Adding {{itemName}} to cart

Added {{itemName}} to cart

Ten elements of a good literature review

• A good literature review is a critical synthesis of the literature on a specific topic e.g. the relationship between class size and student achievement. Too many students engage in “telling” (what X or Y said about the topic) rather than also “synthesizing” (what is said, how well it is said, what is missing etc.)
• A good literature review works with published research literature rather than opinion pieces, advocacy material or professional viewpoints on the topic. This means that the principal resource for information on the topic is journal articles that publish current research.
• A good literature review works mainly with recent research on the topic given the growth in knowledge on any subject. The only exception is where a classic text is referred to or in the case of historical research which of course requires a long-term view of the literature e.g. the history of corporal punishment in South African education.
• A good literature review, having described what is known about the topic, brings in the voice of the researcher in the assessment of that literature. This is difficult for novice researchers but something that should and can be learnt, for example, by reading how others do book reviews or literature reviews in journals that specialize in that particular craft e.g. The Review of Educational Research or The Review of Research in Education.
• A good literature review is able to give a competent account of what is known about the topic as a first step. This means being able to give a cogent and concise account in one paragraph, in your own words, what a body of research says about the topic.
• A good literature review then is able to say what it not well known about the topic as a second step. This means being able to identify silences, gaps or contradictions in the body of literature on the specific topic. This is the critical in a critical synthesis of the literature.
• A good literature review then is able to say how your research addresses the weakness(es) in the literature reviewed as a third step.
• A good literature review is therefore able to acknowledge the research done on the topic (we stand on the shoulders of giants) and then demonstrate how the research proposed on the topic adds value or new knowledge on the topic (we step on the toes of giants).
• A good literature review has a competent grasp of all the major published research on the topic . This means, as a rule of thumb, at least 100 solid research articles on the topic should be reviewed.
• A good literature review is written in a fluent, academic voice from beginning to end, almost like a spy novel, so that reader is captured in the story until it reaches its climax—“and this is how my research hopes to fill the gap/address the silence/resolve the contradiction/add new knowledge on the topic under review. This means that the final copy of the literature review would have undergone MANY revisions and, done well, could be a standalone chapter in the thesis or dissertation.

PS. Always useful to do an annotated bibliography of all your literature references before starting to write the literature review

Closing schools just means poor kids bear the brunt of the virus

What happens to your rights in a pandemic, you may also like, corrupted: a study of chronic dysfunction in south..., learning under lockdown – 100 student voices, limitations of the literature – a guide to..., ten rules for turning a dissertation into a..., leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Power To Truth With JJ Tabane

Corrupted: a study of chronic dysfunction in south…, limitations of the literature – a guide to…, honorary doctorate – uct faculty of humanities graduation…, ten rules for turning a dissertation into a…, trading places, a different take, my south africa, q&a-plus: let’s clear up some confusion about matric…, relocating some universities to places of relative safety…, there’s always room for more students, better planning,…, bela, my dear, where did we go wrong.

• Books published in 2022 & 2023
• Presentations
• Speaking Requests

• Schools & departments

Literature review

A general guide on how to conduct and write a literature review.

Please check course or programme information and materials provided by teaching staff, including your project supervisor, for subject-specific guidance.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a piece of academic writing demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the academic literature on a specific topic placed in context.  A literature review also includes a critical evaluation of the material; this is why it is called a literature review rather than a literature report. It is a process of reviewing the literature, as well as a form of writing.

To illustrate the difference between reporting and reviewing, think about television or film review articles.  These articles include content such as a brief synopsis or the key points of the film or programme plus the critic’s own evaluation.  Similarly the two main objectives of a literature review are firstly the content covering existing research, theories and evidence, and secondly your own critical evaluation and discussion of this content. 

Usually a literature review forms a section or part of a dissertation, research project or long essay.  However, it can also be set and assessed as a standalone piece of work.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

…your task is to build an argument, not a library. Rudestam, K.E. and Newton, R.R. (1992) Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. California: Sage, p49.

In a larger piece of written work, such as a dissertation or project, a literature review is usually one of the first tasks carried out after deciding on a topic.  Reading combined with critical analysis can help to refine a topic and frame research questions.  Conducting a literature review establishes your familiarity with and understanding of current research in a particular field before carrying out a new investigation. After doing a literature review, you should know what research has already been done and be able to identify what is unknown within your topic.

When doing and writing a literature review, it is good practice to:

• summarise and analyse previous research and theories;
• identify areas of controversy and contested claims;
• highlight any gaps that may exist in research to date.

Conducting a literature review

Focusing on different aspects of your literature review can be useful to help plan, develop, refine and write it.  You can use and adapt the prompt questions in our worksheet below at different points in the process of researching and writing your review.  These are suggestions to get you thinking and writing.

Developing and refining your literature review (pdf)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word rtf)

Writing a literature review has a lot in common with other assignment tasks.  There is advice on our other pages about thinking critically, reading strategies and academic writing.  Our literature review top tips suggest some specific things you can do to help you submit a successful review.

Literature review top tips (pdf)

Literature review top tips (Word rtf)

Our reading page includes strategies and advice on using books and articles and a notes record sheet grid you can use.

Reading at university

The Academic writing page suggests ways to organise and structure information from a range of sources and how you can develop your argument as you read and write.

Academic writing

The Critical thinking page has advice on how to be a more critical researcher and a form you can use to help you think and break down the stages of developing your argument.

Critical thinking

As with other forms of academic writing, your literature review needs to demonstrate good academic practice by following the Code of Student Conduct and acknowledging the work of others through citing and referencing your sources.  

Good academic practice

As with any writing task, you will need to review, edit and rewrite sections of your literature review.  The Editing and proofreading page includes tips on how to do this and strategies for standing back and thinking about your structure and checking the flow of your argument.

Editing and proofreading

Guidance on literature searching from the University Library

The Academic Support Librarians have developed LibSmart I and II, Learn courses to help you develop and enhance your digital research skills and capabilities; from getting started with the Library to managing data for your dissertation.

Searching using the library’s DiscoverEd tool: DiscoverEd

Finding resources in your subject: Subject guides

The Academic Support Librarians also provide one-to-one appointments to help you develop your research strategies.

1 to 1 support for literature searching and systematic reviews

Advice to help you optimise use of Google Scholar, Google Books and Google for your research and study: Using Google

Managing and curating your references

A referencing management tool can help you to collect and organise and your source material to produce a bibliography or reference list. 

Referencing and reference management

Information Services provide access to Cite them right online which is a guide to the main referencing systems and tells you how to reference just about any source (EASE log-in may be required).

Cite them right

Published study guides

There are a number of scholarship skills books and guides available which can help with writing a literature review.  Our Resource List of study skills guides includes sections on Referencing, Dissertation and project writing and Literature reviews.

Study skills guides

Literature Reviews: 5. Write the Review

• Library Basics
• 1. Choose Your Topic
• How to Find Books
• Types of Clinical Study Designs
• Types of Literature
• 3. Search the Literature
• 4. Read & Analyze the Literature
• 5. Write the Review
• Keeping Track of Information
• Style Guides
• Books, Tutorials & Examples

Qualities of A Good Lit Review

Create an outline, then summarize & synthesize.

Draft an outline for your review.   Read more about developing an outline here at the Purdue OWL site.

Summarize & Synthesize

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the topic.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration, noting contradictory studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way forward for further research.

Choose How to Organize Your Paper

Before writing, you should consider a few different ways of organizing or categorizing the literature you've looked at and consider prioritizing the readings, or grouping them by methodology or theme.

1.  Chronologically – Organizing your sources by the date of publication can show how scholarly perspective on a topic has changed over time.

2.  Thematically – Organizing by theme puts all of the sources with a similar focus together, making it very easy to see where differences in perspective emerge.

3.  Methodologically – Organizing by method, much like organizing by theme, puts similar sources together and illustrates what effect method has on final product.  

At a loss for words?

• Academic Phrasebank Check out this phrasebank of terms and phrases to use in your research papers.

Elements of the Literature Review

There are many different ways to organize your references in a literature review, but most reviews contain certain basic elements.

Objectives - Clearly describe the purpose of the paper and state your objectives in completing the literature review.

Background/Introduction – Give an overview of your research topic and what prompted it.

Methods - Describe step by step how your performed your evaluation of the materials.

Discussion/Body - The body contains the evaluation or synthesis of the materials.  Discuss and compare common themes and gaps in the literature. You may also want to include a section on "questions for further research" and discuss what issues the review has sparked about the topic/field or offer suggestions for future studies that build on your current findings.

Conclusion – A summary of your analysis and evaluation of the reviewed works and how it is related to its parent discipline, scientific endeavor, or profession.

Bibliography - A list of the papers you discussed, aka References.  To learn more about different citation styles, visit the "Manage References and Citations" tab.

Writing Tips

Once you actually begin to write the review, stick to your outline and keep these tips in mind:

• Consider your audience.  Are you engaging with specialists in one discipline? Or generalists in more than one discipline?
• When writing for a more general audience, avoid jargon and strive for "plain English."
• When writing for a very specialized audience, consider using "plain English" anyway.
• Short paragraphs are easier to read than long paragraphs.
• Subheadings and subsections can help to underscore the structure of your review.
• Do more than just summarize the readings.  A lit review is not an annotated bibliography.
• Resist the temptation to refer to *all* the readings you've evaluated.  To begin with, focus on readings you've identified as essential or representative.
• Tell the reader how the literature intersects with your project -- how your project complements the existing literature.
• Be objective.  
• << Previous: 4. Read & Analyze the Literature
• Next: Keeping Track of Information >>
• Last Updated: Dec 29, 2023 11:41 AM
• URL: https://research.library.gsu.edu/litrev

• Holy Spirit Library
• Library Guides
• EDG 501 Literature Review

Components of a Literature Review

Edg 501 literature review: components of a literature review.

• Structure of a Literature Review
• Writing the Literature Review
• Databases and Searching Tips
• Examples/Writing Helps

Talk to a Librarian

Library links.

• Library Home
• Research Databases

Reference Desk 610.902.8537

The works that make up the literature review fall into three categories:  

General theoretical literature

• This literature establishes the importance of your topic/research.  define abstract concepts, discuss the relationships between abstract concepts, and include statistics about the problem being investigated.  Landmark and classic articles are also included.
• Encyclopedia of Education
• Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies
• Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology
• 21st Century Education

Literature on related topic areas

• These sources identify general themes that run throughout the literature.   For example,  a  search on the topic of high stakes testing will find articles on high stakes testing and gender, socioeconomic status, inclusive education, cheating, and academic achievement.  

Resources for this literature (see below) : 

• Academic Search Complete This link opens in a new window
• PsycARTICLES This link opens in a new window
• PsycINFO This link opens in a new window

Literature specific to your research focus

• This literature is highly relevant.  The sources isolate the issues and highlight the findings you expected when you articulated your research question or formulated your hypothesis.    

Next Step: See  Writing the Literature Review

Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Qualitative research methods are tools for gathering information that does not take a numerical form that can be counted and otherwise manipulated mathematically. If I live with a group of women and men and observe that males tend to dominate conversations, for example, my results consist of an interpretation based on a set of observations that I summarize in an overall impression. As such, it is a qualitative assessment of what is going on. By contrast, if I systematically count how often men and women interact and then compare the totals, my method is quantitative, because it produces numerical results.

Qualitative methods are most closely associated with  participant observation ,  historical sociology ,  ethnomethodology ,  ethnography and ethnology . Quantitative methods are most closely associated with  surveys ,  experiments , and other forms of numerical  data  gathering. Although quantitative methods are often considered superior to socalled "soft" qualitative methods, most sociologists appreciate that each provides unique and valuable insights into the workings of social life that are beyond the reach of the other.

Qualitative and quantitative research methods. (2000). In A. G. Johnson, 

The Blackwell dictionary of sociology  (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Publishers. Retrieved from Credo Reference.

Welcome to Holy Spirit Library

• << Previous: Structure of a Literature Review
• Next: Writing the Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jan 23, 2024 2:33 PM
• URL: https://cabrini.libguides.com/c.php?g=268013

Holy Spirit Library 610-902-8538 [email protected] cabrini.edu/library

PhD Assistance

Mention the important elements involved in a literature review.

• A Dissertation Literature Review is the fundamental part of any dissertation paper which explains the theories, author perspective, practical approaches and necessary arguments in a straightforward way.
• The literature review is established as the essential section of a thesis or dissertation, which helps to Estimate theoretical or practical importance of the problem
• It is important to read and gather information, i.e. theories and evidence related to your research work, to justify your research work.

Introduction

The literature review is the essential part which appears at the beginning of the dissertation work. It is always necessary to include the citation and name of the author with methodologies they stated inside the literature review. Hence, it is important to read and gather information, i.e. theories and evidence related to your research work. Always look for a relevant research paper which is related to your theories and problem statement. Collect enough sources to justify the research work, and you must conclude with that source’s help. You can get PhD Thesis Literature Review Help from experts to get the best literature review for your dissertation.

Definition and Use/Purpose

The literature review is established as the essential section of a Thesis or Dissertation . Some of the purposes are mentioned below: It is necessary to write a PhD literature review based on the following.

• Differentiate between what others have done in their work and state what needs to be done or changed.
• Identifying significant variables related to the topic
• Incorporating and achieving a new perspective
• Discovering the relation between concepts and training
• Establish the background of the issue or topic
• Estimating theoretical or practical importance of the problem
• Recognizing the source and construction of the subject

Significant Elements of Literature Review

Identifying the gap in existing research

Before finding a Research Gap , it is necessary to understand what is a research gap means, when you read a research journal or paper of your interest, you may find some areas of research that have significant scope for research. Still, they are not considered by other researcher or no one select that research area and worked on that idea. It refers to an unexplored or underexplored area that has further research scope in future. Literature Review Writing Help guides you to identify research gap and also provides you with the best ideas to carry out research.

Difficulties faced while identifying research gaps

Identifying the Research Gap and coming up with an innovative research topic is more critical; following are some of the reason faced by research in identifying a research gap in a particular research area.

• The effort of dealing with an enormous amount of information:

There may be several unanswered questions found in the research area in which you are more interested. So you might feel complicated with the amount of research gap you stumble upon, and you might get confused in choosing and concentrating on a particular research problem.

• The difficulty of searching in an organized manner:

Some authors may find it hard to organize the data they have collected. So, there is more way to lose their ideas if they do not notice it properly.

• Hesitation in questioning established norms:

Some researcher found it difficult in challenging the current knowledge in their research field and hesitates to question others work and what they claimed. Literature Review Writing Services help in identifying all the above.

Explore existing information in the field of research

Gathering inadequate or incorrect resources may lead to research failure; hence, it is always significant to collect relevant information to justify the research problem. You need to have enough information to conclude your research work. The example and evidence you need to mention in your work are not satisfactory or insufficient mean your dissertation or project work become reasonable and a defective one. Also, ignorance of correct and sufficient information will affect the scope and reputation of the research work, relevant theories, evidence, methodologies and examples act as the pillar to your proof and conclusion. So it is always necessary to look out for an appropriate and a required number of methods and proofs to prove your research work.

You can gather related resources from scholarly journals, conference papers and articles and from some other relevant references or resources which have in-depth research sources. Google Scholar is one of the powerful platforms from where you can identify and also collect reputed work of other another.

Show the relationship between previous theories and studies

Relevant theories

The theoretical foundation of various resources, specific aims, essential assumptions and expressed theories are the powerful fundamentals to be defined in a literature review of a dissertation.

A Theoretical Framework acts as the fundamental foundation of research work on which the given research is rebuilt. It represents a wide range of theories and essential concepts and their definition engaged in research journals. Overall the theoretical framework is where the researcher demonstrates the significant understanding of the approaches and methodologies related to the topic of their research study.

It set a boundary for specific research work and their scope, beside which the authors are not permitted to go forward. It is generally found at the preliminary section of any research papers and often combined with a review of associated literature.

So, if you want to identify a theoretical framework for any research paper, you need to look at the inductor part of the research work. Search for the stated theories; examine how the author explained the significance of their work and effort and the research problem or hypothesis that the researcher answered and validated. Any ideas or theory which is cited would also be part of the research framework.

The word “framework” has a significant meaning in its context, and it elaborates the maximum limit of a research focus. It is difficult to state in the research paper about every aspect of the research in this world; hence it must be too general or blurred or out of focus. To increase the research value, it is always necessary to increase the clarity and focus of the research paper. The author must clearly state the limitations of their research work in the introductory part.

Finding main methodologies, reference and citation

The method section describes how the author researched, which theory they employed, what the methods they used are and how they have concluded the collected resource. The research methodology must be elaborated be enough that another researcher can duplicate the study described.

• What type of method the author use for research? Whether it is an appropriate method for their study or not?
• How did the researcher identify their subject? For what principle they use?
• Discovering the context of the study which may affect the outcome of the research
• Was the sample size is huge enough to bring out the necessary result.
• Does the data collection tools and procedures are enough to measure the significance and accuracy of the work?

It is necessary to mention the appropriate reference and work of another author you have mentioned in your research work. Otherwise, your work will be considered as copied. It is always necessary to have a plagiarism-free work. If you referred to many literary works and feel difficult in writing, you can get help from the Writing Services PhD Literature Review . They provide writing help to bring originality in the research work.

A literature review is the fundamental part of any dissertation paper which explains the theories, author perspective, practical approaches and necessary arguments in a straightforward way. So it is always essential to have a formal literature review in your dissertation or research project. If you find it difficult in writing a literature review, we provide Best Dissertation Literature Review Help .

• Hart, C. (2018).  Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination . Sage.
• Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review.  International small business journal ,  15 (3), 56-77.
• Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain.  Journal of systems and software ,  80 (4), 571-583.

Quick Contact

• Adversial Attacks
• Artificial Intelligence
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) and ML ( Machine Learning )
• Big Data Analysis
• Business and Management
• Categories of Research methodology – PhDAssistance
• Category of Research Proposal Services
• coding & algorithm
• Computer Data Science
• Category of Machine Learning – PhDassistance
• Computer Science/Research writing/Manuscript
• Course Work Service
• Data Analytics
• Data Processing
• Deep Networks
• Dissertation Statistics
• economics dissertation
• Editing Services
• Electrical Engineering Category
• Engineering & Technology
• finance dissertation writing
• Gap Identification
• Healthcare Dissertation Writing
• Intrusion-detection-system
• journals publishing
• Life Science Dissertation writing services
• literature review service
• Machine Learning
• medical thesis writing
• Peer review
• PhD Computer Programming
• PhD Dissertation
• Phd Journal Manuscript
• Annotated Bibliography
• PhD Publication Support
• Phd thesis writing services
• Phd Topic Selection
• Categories of PhdAssistance Dissertation
• Power Safety
• problem identification
• Quantitative Analysis
• quantitative research
• Recent Trends
• Research Gap
• research journals
• Research Methodology
• research paper
• Research Proposal Service
• secondary Data collection
• Statistical Consulting Services
• Uncategorized

PhD Assistance | Blog

Article Review

Article reviews are an essential part of academic article writing , providing an opportunity to evaluate and analyze published research. A well-written review can help readers understand the simple subject matter and determine the value of the article. In this article, we’ll cover what is an article review, provide step-by-step guidance on how to write one, and answer some common questions.

1. Journal Article Review Form

Size: 84 KB

2. Article Review & Critique

Size: 420 KB

3. Formal Article Review

Size: 188 KB

4. Article Review Guideline

Size: 157 KB

5. Book and Article Reviews

Size: 284 KB

6. Format for Review Article

Size: 71 KB

7. Scientific Article Review

Size: 258 KB

8. Critical Reviews of Journal Articles

Size: 50 KB

9. Research Experience Article Review

Size: 31 KB

10. Review for Article Psychological Bulletin

11. Article Format Guide Review

Size: 449 KB

12. Value Of Review Article

Size: 51 KB

13. Articles for Peer-Review Publications

Size: 181 KB

14. Law Review Article Selection Process

15. Creative Article Review

Size: 46 KB

16. Club Article Review

Size: 77 KB

17. Review of Research Articles

Size: 152 KB

What is an Article Review

An article review is a critical assessment of a scholarly article or research paper. It involves analyzing the content, methodology, and findings of the article and providing an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses. The review typically includes a summary of the article’s main points, an evaluation of its contribution to the subject, and suggestions for improvement.

How to Write an Article Review

Writing an article review can be a challenging task, but it’s an essential skill for students and researchers alike. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you write an effective article review:

Choose the article to review

Select an article that is relevant to your subject and interests you. Make sure the article is recent, reputable, and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Read the article carefully

Read the article thoroughly and take notes as you go. Pay attention to the author’s thesis statement, research question, methodology, and findings.

Identify the main points and key arguments

Determine the main points and arguments of the article. Look for evidence that supports the author’s thesis statement.

Evaluate the article’s methodology and research design

Evaluate the methodology and research design used in the article. Determine if the research methods were appropriate and effective in answering the research question.

Assess the article’s strengths and weaknesses

Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Evaluate the quality of the evidence presented and the logic of the arguments made.

Write a summary of the article

Summarize the article in your own words. Include the main points, key arguments, and findings of the article.

Write the main body of the review

In the main body of the review, analyze and evaluate the article. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article and provide evidence to support your claims.

Conclude with a final evaluation and recommendations for improvement

Conclude your review with a final evaluation conclusion of the article. Highlight its strengths and weaknesses and provide recommendations for improvement.

Proofread and edit the review

After completing your review, proofread and edit it carefully. Check for spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. Make sure your review is clear, concise, and well-organized.

What is the difference between an article review and a literature review?

A literature review is a comprehensive analysis of published research on a particular subject, while an article review focuses specifically on one article.

Can I use first-person sentences in an article review?

It depends on the guidelines given by your instructor or the publication you are submitting the review to. Generally, using the third person is more appropriate for academic writing sentences .

Should I include the abstract of the article in my review?

Yes, including a brief summary of the article’s abstract is usually a good idea.

How long should an article review be?

The length of an article review varies depending on the subject and the publication requirements. Generally, a review should be between 500 and 1000 words.

Writing an effective article review requires careful analysis, evaluation, and critique of the article. By following our step-by-step guide, you can develop the skills to write a comprehensive and insightful review that provides valuable information to readers. Whether you’re reviewing an academic article, book or manuscript , or any other subject, the tips and techniques outlined here will help you write an effective article review.

AI Generator

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• For authors
• Browse by collection
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 14, Issue 3
• Experiences, prevalence and drivers of disrespect and abuse of adolescents during facility-based childbirth in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6723-5048 Samson Udho 1 , 2 ,
• Sheila Elizabeth Clow 2
• 1 Department of Midwifery , Lira University , Lira , Uganda
• 2 Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences , University of Cape Town , Rondebosch , Western Cape , South Africa
• Correspondence to Mr Samson Udho; sudho{at}lirauni.ac.ug

Introduction Adolescents are more likely to experience disrespect and abuse (D&A) by skilled health personnel during facility-based childbirth. However, research evidence on the experiences, prevalence and drivers of D&A of adolescents in childbirth is limited. We aim to establish research evidence on the experiences, prevalence and drivers of D&A of adolescents during facility-based childbirth in sub-Saharan Africa and identify gaps in the literature to inform future research.

Methods and analysis The protocol is designed using Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework and will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We will systematically search to retrieve peer-reviewed articles published in English from 2011 to date in PubMed/Medline, EBSCOhost (Africa Wide Information, CINAHL, PsycINFO and SocINDEX), Web of Science (SciELO Citation Index and Web of Science Core Collection) and Scopus. Two independent reviewers will screen the references by titles, abstracts and full texts. Discrepancies in screening results will be resolved through discussions. Key elements of included studies will be charted using a predetermined tool. We will perform numerical analysis and synthesis of narrative accounts of the extent, nature and distribution of review studies.

Ethics and dissemination No ethical approval is required since the scoping review will use openly available public data and information. Review findings will be disseminated at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. No protocol registration is required.

• Nursing Care
• Health Equity
• Quality in health care

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078912

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

Multiple databases will be searched using various approaches to retrieve articles on the review topic.

This review will be conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

Only peer-reviewed articles published in English from 2011 to date will be included.

Due to the heterogeneity and breadth of the included studies, the final data extraction framework will not be complete until the review is concluded.

Introduction

Disrespect and abuse (D&A) of women by skilled health personnel during facility-based childbirth is a public health problem with far-reaching consequences. 1 It is estimated that one-third of women experience some form of D&A in childbirth. 1 2 In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), 44% of women experience D&A during childbirth, with non-confidential care and abandonment as the most common forms of D&A. 3

D&A in childbirth can be generally defined as ‘interactions or facility conditions that local consensus deems to be humiliating or undignified, and those interactions or conditions that are experienced as or intended to be humiliating or undignified’. 4 Women who experience D&A by skilled health personnel during childbirth are more likely to be dissatisfied with care from that health facility. 5 6 This decreases their likelihood of seeking care from the same facility, which leads to the underutilisation of skilled health personnel. 7–9 Women who give birth without skilled health personnel are more likely to experience adverse childbirth outcomes such as prolonged labour, obstructed labour, uterine rupture, obstetric fistula, postpartum haemorrhage and birth asphyxia. 10 11

Since the work of Bowser and Hill 8 in 2010 and the White Ribbon Alliance 12 in 2011, there has been burgeoning literature on the D&A of women during facility-based childbirth. Previous studies have shown that adolescents are more likely to experience D&A by skilled health personnel during facility-based childbirth. 13 14 The mistreatment of adolescents is thought to be partly related to negative attitudes, labelling and judgmental behaviours of healthcare workers. 15 However, most pregnant adolescents lack companionship while seeking care, and this increases their vulnerability to mistreatment. 16 Adolescents constitute a significant number of pregnant women who seek care in health facilities in SSA 17 but are usually excluded from most research on D&A by skilled health personnel for ethical reasons. Therefore, research evidence on the experiences, prevalence and drivers of D&A of adolescents during facility-based childbirth in SSA during childbirth is limited.

We aim to conduct a scoping review to systemically map research evidence on the experiences, prevalence and drivers of D&A of adolescents during facility-based childbirth in SSA and identify gaps in the literature to inform future research. This information would inform the design of scalable interventions to strengthen respectful maternity care for adolescents during childbirth. The primary question that will guide the review is, what is known about the experiences, prevalence and drivers of D&A of adolescents by skilled health personnel during facility-based childbirth in SSA?

We will conduct this scoping review following the stages described by Arksey and O'Malley 18 from March to December 2024. These stages include (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting studies; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results. We will also adopt the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. 19 Although critical appraisal of studies is not mandatory in a scoping review, 19 we will evaluate the risk of bias of the included articles using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools 20 to identify the strengths and limitations of the included studies. The five stages that will be followed in this scoping review are expanded below.

Stage 1: identifying the research question

The research question sets the tone for a scoping review and guides the overall review process. 18 The research question of a scoping review should be as broad as possible to avoid missing out on relevant literature on the topic. 18 The primary question for this scoping review is, ‘What is known about the experiences, prevalence and drivers of D&A in adolescents by skilled health personnel during facility-based childbirth in the context of SSA?’. We have identified two secondary questions to guide the scoping review and to complement the broader research question. These questions will be refined as the review continues and will include, but will not be limited to: (1) what is the extent, range and nature of available evidence on the experiences, prevalence and drivers of D&A in adolescents by skilled health personnel during facility-based childbirth in the context of SSA? and (2) what are the gaps in the literature on the experiences, prevalence and drivers of D&A in adolescents by skilled health personnel during facility-based childbirth in SSA?

Stage 2: identifying relevant studies

We plan to conduct literature searches on eight major electronic databases relevant to the review topic: PubMed/Medline, EBSCOhost (Africa Wide Information, CINAHL, PsycINFO and SocINDEX), Web of Science (SciELO Citation Index and Web of Science Core Collection) and Scopus. The construction of the search strategy will be guided by Aromataris and Riitano 21 on how to systematically review the literature. A search strategy will be developed using Boolean Logic Operators of ‘AND’ and ‘OR’ and adapted for the selected databases as summarised in online supplemental file 1 . The keywords to be used in the search strategy are disrespect, abuse, labour, childbirth, health facilities and a list of all countries in SSA. The MeSH terms associated with these words will also be added to the search strategy to avoid missing any key references.

Supplemental material

The search strategy will be adapted to meet the truncation and Boolean operations of each database as appropriate. Since a scoping review is supposed to be as broad as possible, we will systematically search the bibliographic databases to retrieve articles. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines by Tricco, Lillie, 19 the number of search results will be recorded at each stage of the study identification process for each database. Arksey and O'Malley 18 recommend that a scoping review has to be explicit about the review coverage in terms of time and language. We will limit our scoping review to peer-reviewed studies published from 2011 to date in the English language. The year 2011 was chosen as the starting review year because most contemporary research on D&A followed the 2010 landscape analysis on D&A in facility-based childbirth by Bowser and Hill 8 and the 2011 respectful maternity care charter by the White Ribbon Alliance. 12 The review will be limited to the English language because of the cost and time involved in translation.

Stage 3: selecting studies

There is a need to develop eligibility criteria to streamline the broad central question posed during a scoping review. Just as in a systematic review, Arksey and O'Malley 18 recommend that a scoping review should develop inclusion and exclusion criteria, based on a specific research question, at the outset of the scoping review to ensure consistency in decision-making. However, these eligibility criteria can be revised based on familiarity with the literature. 18 The eligibility criteria for this scoping review will be guided by the review questions as determined using the Population Exposure Context Outcome design framework accompanied by study sources and language restrictions 22 ( table 1 ).

• View inline

PECOd eligibility criteria 22

Articles retrieved from the databases searched will be downloaded to Endnote, 23 and any duplicates will be removed. Retained articles after the removal of duplicates will be exported to Rayyan. 24 Rayyan is a free web and mobile application tool designed to help researchers working on systematic reviews, scoping reviews and other knowledge synthesis projects to speed up the process of screening and selecting studies. 24 Papers will be screened by titles and abstracts in Rayyan by two independent reviewers. Decisions about the papers will be based on the pre-set inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included papers from the title and abstract screening will be sourced for full-text screening. Two independent reviewers will screen the references by titles, abstracts and full texts. The agreement on inclusion/exclusion will be made by consensus, and any disagreements regarding inclusion/exclusion will be resolved through discussion. Inter-rater reliability will be recorded at the title, abstract, and full-text screening stages. There will be a narrative description of the search decision process accompanied by the PRISMA-ScR search decision flowchart 22 ( figure 1 ).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews 22 .

Stage 4: charting the data

Data charting relates to retrieving key elements of information obtained from the primary research reports being reviewed. 18 Data charting involves a logical and descriptive summary of the results that align with the objective/s and question/s of the review. 22 Charting the data for this scoping review will be aided by a draft charting table ( table 2 ). 22

Preliminary data charting elements 22

This table will be trialled on at least two studies before it is fully adopted. During the data charting, the reviewers will meet regularly to discuss progress on data extraction and make decisions regarding the relevance and adequacy of data extraction tools based on emerging issues. Changes made to the data extraction tool and study protocol will be documented.

Stage 5: collating, summarising and reporting the results

A scoping review does not seek to synthesise new evidence, but it seeks to examine the extent, range and nature of research on the review topic. 18 In this final stage of the scoping review, the reviewers will provide a full account of all materials reviewed. We shall develop a reporting template that summarises the basic characteristics and key findings of all studies included in the review. This will form the basis of our collation and reporting which will be done in two ways:

We will perform numerical analysis and synthesise narrative accounts of the extent, nature and distribution of the studies included in the review. This will help shed light on the dominant areas of research on D&A of adolescents by skilled health personnel during facility-based childbirth in terms of geographic location, research approach and design, target population, theoretical/conceptual frameworks used, experiences, prevalence and drivers of D&A of adolescents during childbirth. Data will be presented as tables, charts and/or visual maps on an aggregate rather than an individual basis.

The review will then provide an overview of the research field, summarise the main findings, identify gaps in the literature and make recommendations for future research.

Patient and public involvement

Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

Ethics and dissemination

Successful completion of this scoping review will uncover what is known about D&A of adolescents by skilled health personnel during facility-based childbirth and identify gaps in the literature on the subject. Results of this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conferences and symposia to inform future empirical research on D&A of adolescents by skilled health personnel during facility-based childbirth. Since this scoping review will use openly available public data and information, no ethical approval is required.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

Acknowledgments.

We thank Ms. Gill Morgan, the Liberian at the Faculty of Health Sciences, University Cape Town for the technical guidance on developing the search strategy.

• World Health Organization
• Bohren MA ,
• Hunter EC , et al
• Tsegaye B ,
• Freedman LP ,
• Abuya T , et al
• Srivastava A ,
• Rajbangshi P , et al
• Shakya HB ,
• Chandurkar D , et al
• Liambila WN ,
• Hulsbergen M ,
• van der Kwaak A
• Mesemburg M ,
• Domingues M , et al
• Azevedo W de ,
• Fonseca E , et al
• White Ribbon Alliance
• Mehrtash H ,
• Fawole B , et al
• Mannava P ,
• Durrant K ,
• Fisher J , et al
• Atuyambe L ,
• Mirembe F ,
• Annika J , et al
• Ahinkorah BO ,
• Perry L , et al
• Tricco AC ,
• Zarin W , et al
• Joanna Briggs Institute
• Aromataris E ,
• Peters MDJ ,
• Godfrey CM ,
• Khalil H , et al
• The EndNote Team
• Ouzzani M ,
• Hammady H ,
• Fedorowicz Z , et al

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

• Data supplement 1

Twitter @SamsonUdho

Contributors Both authors have made substantive intellectual contributions to the development of this protocol. SU conceptualised and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. SEC offered technical guidance in designing and writing the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Advertisement

Development of an SDG interlinkages analysis model at the river basin scale: a case study in the Luanhe River Basin, China

• Special Feature: Original Article
• Synergies and Trade-offs between Sustainable Development Goals and Targets
• Open access
• Published: 04 January 2022
• Volume 17 , pages 1405–1433, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Xin Zhou 1 ,
• Mustafa Moinuddin 1 ,
• Fabrice Renaud 2 ,
• Brian Barrett 3 ,
• Jiren Xu 2 ,
• Qiuhua Liang 4 ,
• Jiaheng Zhao 4 ,
• Xilin Xia 4 ,
• Lee Bosher 4 ,
• Suiliang Huang 5 &
• Trevor Hoey 6  

4652 Accesses

7 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

While the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are broadly framed with 17 goals, the goals and their targets inherently connect with each other forming a complex system. Actions supporting one goal may influence progress in other goals, either positively (synergies) or negatively (trade-offs). Effective managing the synergies and trade-offs is a prerequisite for ensuring policy coherence. This is particular relevant at the river basin scale where the implementation of national policies may generate inequalities at the sub-basin levels, such as the upstream and the downstream. In the existing literature, there is still a lack of methodologies to assess the SDG interlinkages and their differences at the subnational levels. This paper presents a methodology on the development of an SDG interlinkages analysis model at the basin scale and its application to a case study in China’s Luanhe River Basin (LRB). Seven broad areas, namely land use and land cover change, climate change, ecosystem services, flood risks, water sector, urbanisation, and energy, were set as the scope of study. Through a systematic review, key elements of the SDG interlinkages system were identified and their interactions were mapped. The resulting generic SDG interlinkages model were validated with expert survey and stakeholders’ consultation and tailored to the LRB. Quantification of the SDG interlinkages was conducted for 27 counties in the LRB and demonstrated by the results of 3 selected counties located in the upstream, midstream and downstream areas, respectively. The methodology and its applications can be used to support integrated water resource management in river basins.

Similar content being viewed by others

A Systematic Study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interactions in the Main Spanish Cities

Decoupling of SDGs followed by re-coupling as sustainable development progresses

Xutong Wu, Bojie Fu, … Jianguo Liu

Prioritising SDG targets: assessing baselines, gaps and interlinkages

Cameron Allen, Graciela Metternicht & Thomas Wiedmann

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The 2030 Agenda charts out a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) explicitly combining the economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainability (United Nations 2015 ). The SDGs cover a diverse range of issues such as poverty (SDG1), education (SDG4), inequality (SDG10), and climate change (SDG13), in separate goals. These goals, however, do not exist independently from each other; rather, the SDGs and associated targets all interact at a deeper level, through inextricable links. Actions supporting one goal or target may influence progress in other goals or targets, either positively (synergies) or negatively (trade-offs). Improved agricultural productivity (Target 2.3), for instance, can help address hunger (Target 2.1) and nutrition (Target 2.2), but may intensify water use, affecting access to water and sanitation (Targets 6.1 and 6.2). Policy formulation, therefore, needs to break away from silo-based thinking and take SDG interlinkages into account (UNDG 2015 ). For example, the 2030 Agenda notes the SDGs’ “integrated and indivisible” nature (United Nations 2015 ), but fails to explain how the goals are interconnected. To address this issue, a Working Group within the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) was mandated to define these intrinsic interlinkages (UNSD 2016 ). Meanwhile, many scholars, think-tanks and international agencies have highlighted the presence of synergies and trade-offs across the SDGs, with some of them providing concepts and analytical frameworks to better comprehend and assess the interlinkages (see, for example, Le Blanc 2015 ; Nilsson et al. 2016a , b ; ICSU 2017 ; UNESCAP 2017 ; Zhou and Moinuddin 2017 ; Weitz et al. 2018 ; Miola et al. 2019 ; Zhou et al. 2019 ). Le Blanc ( 2015 ) and Zhou and Moinuddin ( 2017 ) suggested looking at SDG interconnectedness from a network perspective, while Nilsson et al. ( 2016a , b ) offered a seven-scale framework for the interactions among the SDGs. ICSU ( 2017 ) used this framework to provide a detailed analysis of selected goals and targets. UNESCAP ( 2017 ) mapped the interactions of the water targets (Goal 6) with other SDGs comprehensively but did not consider the integrated management aspect of water resources. Methodologies that provide options for quantifying the SDG interlinkages include the works of Zhou et al. ( 2019 ) and Miola et al. ( 2019 ).

The approaches to address SDG interlinkages thus have been a mix of data-driven methodologies, stakeholders’ consultation and expert opinion. Each approach may have its own advantages and disadvantages. A stakeholders’ consultation-based approach may provide useful insights into the context of the SDG interlinkages in a certain geographical area, but can be biased by the selection of the stakeholders. An expert opinion-based approach can provide very detailed and rich sector-specific information (such as UNESCAP 2017 ). However, as the SDGs cover a very wide range of issues, expert opinion-based approaches are more suitable for specific thematic discussions rather than the whole set of the SDGs. Data-driven approaches can capture the real situation of the SDG indicators, and the interlinkages among the SDGs, using real-life data. But a solely data-driven statistical approach may overlook the context and the theoretical basis of the causal links among the SDGs. Data-driven approaches are also compromised by the quality and quantity of available data. In brief, a combination of data-driven approaches based on a solid literature review, expert opinion and stakeholders’ consultation may be more effective in identifying and quantifying the interlinkages.

Despite these early-stage studies on SDG interactions, there is still a lack of methodologies and frameworks to address many other critical issues. For instance, aside from national policies, SDG interlinkage is also important in subnational policies. How two SDG targets interact with each other may differ across regions even within a country. The spatial dimensions, such as inter-regional interactions, also merit attention. For example, within a river basin, fishing practices in upstream areas may be synergistic with the local economy and society but may lead to water pollution downstream. Some recent initiatives such as UN-Habitat’s efforts to develop a Global Urban Monitoring Framework have noted the importance of interlinkages among different dimensions of development in local policymaking (UN-Habitat 2021 ). Some authors such as Patole ( 2018 ) and Saner et al. ( 2017 ) stressed the importance of SDG localisation. However, existing literature does not offer any methodological framework on the context-specific and spatial dimensions of SDG interlinkages.

Available studies on watersheds mostly focus on the physical environmental aspects, such as hydrological processes or ecosystems. Many studies (such as Bangash et al. 2013 ; Islam and Gan 2015 ; Nepal 2016 ; Nkhonjera and Dinka 2017 ; Trang et al. 2017 ; de Oliveira et al. 2019 ; Yang et al. 2020 ) analysed how climate change, land use change and other factors affect hydrological processes, and some studies assessed the impacts on ecosystems (such as Guo et al. 2013 ; Val et al. 2016 ; Johnston et al. 2017 ; Cheng et al. 2018 ; Wei et al. 2018 ; Zhou et al. 2020 ). However, the socio-economic aspects of basin dynamics received little attention. Among the few studies, Wang et al. ( 2017 ) assessed how human well-being, including income, is impacted by changes in land use and ecosystem services. The assessment methodology is also important—many existing literatures adopted hydrological models (Dahal et al. 2020 ; Shadmehri Toosi et al. 2019 ; Yang et al. 2019 ), system dynamics (Bakhshianlamouki et al. 2020 ; De Stercke et al. 2020 ), or GIS technics (Gebremicael et al. 2018 ; Luo et al. 2020 ; Morelli et al. 2014 ). However, there is a gap in studies that consider river basin dynamics from a holistic and integrated SDGs framework that includes the interconnectedness of the SDGs.

Under the Living Luanhe Lab project ( https://luanhelivinglab.home.blog/ ), this study developed an SDG interlinkages analysis model at the river basin scale. River basins provide an example of connectivity among spatially distributed natural resources, such connectivity ranging from ‘fully connected to disconnected over diverse temporal and spatial scales’ (Wohl 2017 ). River basins also demonstrate clear hydrological boundaries. Consequently, movements of natural resources among the spatial units define how the supply and demand of these resources are interconnected. This physical interconnectedness affects and is affected by anthropogenic activities in the economic and social spheres.

Seven broad areas, namely land use and land cover change, climate change, ecosystem services, flood risk, water sector, urbanisation, and energy, were set as the scope of study under the Living Luanhe Lab project due to their importance in the human–environment interactions at the basin scale. Through a rigorous systematic review of the literature in the seven areas, key elements of the SDG interlinkages system were identified and their interactions were mapped. The resulting generic SDG interlinkages model for basins were validated with expert survey and stakeholders’ consultation and further customised to China’s Luanhe River Basin (LRB), which was selected for the case study. Quantification of the SDG interlinkages in LRB was conducted based on the data collected at the county level. The results of three counties located in the upstream, midstream and downstream areas, respectively, were selected to demonstrate the common features as well as the spatial differences in SDG interlinkages in LRB.

Located in the northeast of the North China Plain, LRB comprises a population of about 5.4 million over an area covering roughly 45,000 km 2 . The basin provides significant ecological benefits in the form of freshwater provision and sandstorm prevention for several major cities, including Beijing and Tianjin. However, human activities such as agriculture and urbanisation, together with imbalanced and unsustainable economic development have heavily stressed the basin’s capacities (“Luanhe Living Lab” project team 2020 ). The basin already faces decreasing quantity and quality of water resources, which are expected to further drop and degrade in the future. Climate change-induced impacts on precipitation and water loss are also likely to lead to deterioration of water availability and quality (“Luanhe Living Lab” project team 2020 ). Balancing the interactions between human and the environment, especially land use change and water and other ecosystem services, will thus be important to ensure the basin’s sustainability.

This paper aims to develop a generic methodology to analyse SDG interlinkages at the river basin scale and apply to a specific case study in the LRB. It is hoped that the knowledge built from this study and its application to the case study in LRB can be used for sustainable water resource management in other river basins.

Section  2 describes the SDG interlinkages analysis methodology, including a systematic review and integration of a statistical analysis with other analytical modelling results to quantify the interlinkages. Section  3 applies the methodology to develop three analytical cases in the LRB. Section  4 discusses the results and Sect.  5 concludes the paper.

Methodology

The present study, built on the methodology of the SDG Interlinkages Analysis and Visualisation Tool (V4.0) ( https://sdginterlinkages.iges.jp/visualisationtool.html ), developed an SDG interlinkages analysis model for the identification and quantification of SDG interlinkages at the basin scale and applied to the LRB.

Methodology of the SDG Interlinkages Analysis and Visualisation Tool and its extension to the river basin scale

The SDG Interlinkages Analysis and Visualisation Tool, hereafter referred to as the SDG Interlinkages Tool, was developed to enable visualisation of quantitative SDG interlinkages at the national level for 27 countries in Asia and Africa (Zhou et al. 2019 ), and has been used in various studies for analysing SDG synergies and trade-offs (Baffoe et al. 2021 ; Somanje et al. 2020 ; Zhou and Moinuddin 2021 ). It is included in the Toolboxes of ESCAP’s SDG Helpdesk (ESCAP, n.d.) and was selected as one of the successful practices/tools for exhibition at the UN 2020 High-level Political Forum (United Nations 2020 ).

The existing methodology, developed for analysis at the national level, cannot reflect the spatial differences (such as upstream vs. downstream areas) in SDG interlinkages in a river basin. In addition, the interactions among land use and land cover change, climate change, ecosystem services, land degradation and soil erosion, water availability, sediment yield, irrigation water use, water quality and groundwater level, etc. which are specific and important to the sustainable development in river basins, are not covered in the national level studies. To capture these features, the present study extended the existing methodology to the basin scale.

The methodology includes four steps (Zhou and Moinuddin 2017 ), as shown in Fig.  1 .

Methodology on the identification, quantification and visualisation of the SDG interlinkages at the national level and its extension to the basin scale

Step I refers to the identification of the causal links between the SDG targets and building a qualitative SDG interlinkages model. Pairwise linkages, defined by causation, indicate the impacts of one target on the other. Identification of the causal relationships for the study at the national level is based on a literature review (Zhou and Moinuddin 2017 ). In the present study, a systematic review on the key elements of sustainable development and their interactions at the basin scale was conducted to build a generic qualitative interlinkage model for river basins. The generic model was further validated and tailored to the LRB through expert survey and stakeholders’ consultation.

Step II refers to the identification of the indicators with trackable data for the SDG targets. At the national level study, the global SDG indicators (United Nations Statistical Commission 2018 ) were used. When indicators or relevant data are not available, other proxy indicators (e.g. the World Bank’s World Development Indicators) were used. For the present study in the LRB, indicators for the variables defined in the qualitative SDG interlinkages model were identified based on various statistics in China and the results from other work packages under the Luanhe Living Lab project.

Under the Luanhe Living Lab project, there are four work packages (WP). WP1 investigated historical changes in land use at the basin scale and developed future land use change scenarios by engaging with a range of stakeholders (Xu et al. 2021b ). WP2 modelled flood risk and impacts under various land use and infrastructure change scenarios (Zhao et al. 2021 ). WP3 evaluated the main ecosystem services and disservices derived from various land use changes in the LRB (Xu et al. 2021a ). WP4 is the SDG interlinkages analysis at the basin scale, which is the present study. Inputs from WPs 1–3 were used for the SDG interlinkages analysis.

In WP1, the land use and land cover change (LULCC) scenarios were developed based on different socio-economic development and environmental protection targets, local plans and policies in the LRB, and the results from a stakeholders’ workshop in Tianjin, China. LULCC under four future scenarios for 2015–2030 was simulated using the CLUMondo model, a model for the assessment of the dynamics of spatial land system change, based on the land system map of the LRB in 2000 and other statistical data (refer to Xu et al. () for details). Results from WP1 on the major drivers to LULCC, including crop production, livestock production, forestry, urbanisation, as well as the LULCC of six major land types, i.e. cropland, forest, grassland, built-up land, water area, and unused land, were used for the SDG interlinkages analysis.

In WP2, the High-Performance Integrated hydrodynamic Modelling System (HiPIMS) model (Xia et al. 2019 ) was set up using openly available digital elevation model (DEM) data and the land use maps generated from WP1 to predict the inundation maps and assess flood impact. The severe flood event caused by the heavy rainfall brought in by Typhoon Saola and Damrey in 2012 was simulated for model calibration. Considering also two climate scenarios, Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 and RCP 8.5, as well as construction of key infrastructure (i.e. dams and reservoirs), a total of 28 flood scenarios were simulated for the four projected LULCC scenarios from WP1 (refer to Zhao et al. ( 2021 ) for details). The simulation and impact analysis results, in terms of the inundation levels/extents of six major land use types and the flood impact on human lives were used to support the SDG interlinkages analysis.

In WP3, ecosystem services, including provisioning, regulating and cultural services, provided by the six land system types in the LRB were assessed through a stakeholder participatory approach (refer to Xu et al. ( 2021a ) for details. Based on the LULCC results from WP1, changes in various ecosystem services were assessed and were used for the SDG interlinkages analysis.

Step III refers to the collection of the time-series data for the identified indicators. For the national level study, the Global SDG Database (UNDESA 2019 ) was used as the major data source. For the present study, time-series data (2005–2018) for the indicators identified by Step II were collected for 27 counties located in the LRB based on various statistics in China and the results from WPs 1–3 (see Fig.  2 ). The indicators used in the interlinkages analysis and their data sources are provided in Appendix 1 .

Inputs from Work Packages 1–3 to the quantification of the SDG interlinkages model

Step IV refers to the quantification of the SDG interlinkages built in Step I. A Pearson correlation analysis was conducted for the quantification of the pairwise linkages using the time-series data collected for the indicators from Step III. The correlation coefficient, ranging between [− 1, 1], refers to the linear relationship between the pairs—a positive coefficient representing a positive relationship and a negative coefficient representing a negative relationship.

• Systematic review

A systematic review (SR) was conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) (Moher et al. 2009 ) to ensure replicability and transparency. The included papers and studies were further analysed through a quasi-automatic text analysis and content analysis to extract useful information for the identification of the key elements in the SDG interlinkages system and mapping their interactions at the basin scale.

Purpose and scope of the systematic review

Purpose of the systematic review.

The purpose of conducting an SR is to extract useful information and synthesise it to help answer two research questions: (i) What are the key elements for achieving sustainable development in river basins? and (ii) How do the key elements interact with each other to achieve sustainable development in river basins? The first question addresses the identification and selection of key elements in the system and the second relates to mapping of the relationships between the elements.

Scope of the systematic review

The SDG interlinkages model is constructed at the basin scale in general. The SR was conducted for seven focused areas of the Luanhe Living Lab project—four SDGs and three specific topics—namely, LULCC, ecosystem services (ES) and flood risk (FR). The four SDGs are Goal 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), Goal 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and Goal 13 (Climate Action) (see Fig.  3 ). There is an overlapping of the areas between FR and Goals 11 and 13 due to the links of FR with Target 11.5 (reducing losses from disasters including water-related disasters) and Target 13.1 (resilience to climate-related disasters).

Scope of the SR. LULCC land use and land cover change, ES ecosystem services, FR flood risk

The pairwise linkages are defined by causation, f  = ( a , b ), indicating the direction of the impacts of “ a ” on “ b ”. Both “ a ” and “ b ” belong to a set of elements which includes a subset of 169 SDG targets and other elements which are not included in the SDG framework but of importance to achieving sustainable development in river basins. Examples of such elements include engineering projects (e.g., reservoirs and dams for water storage, flood control and power generation), sediments, and different types of ecosystem services such as provisioning, regulating and cultural.

The DPIR framework as a basic structure of the SDG interlinkages model

The Driver-Pressure-Impact-Response (DPIR) framework, a simplified version of Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (EEA 1999 ), was used as a base for constructing the SDG interlinkages model. In the context of a river basin, human activities (e.g., urbanisation and irrigation) as drivers exert pressures on the environment (e.g., water pollution and water use intensity), which result in changes in the state of the environment (such as chemical oxygen demand in fresh water and frequency of water shortages, etc.). These changes may cause ecological degradation (e.g., of the provisioning services of water-related ecosystems) and associated economic and social impacts (e.g., health impacts). Society then responds to address the environmental degradation and manage the risks through mitigation, adaptation and prevention measures (e.g., pollution abatement and water supply prices). As a causal chain framework, DPSIR is a useful tool to help identify the problems (pressures and impacts), their causes (drivers) and the solutions (responses) and enable communication among various stakeholders.

Grouping the identified key elements into each of the four components of DPIR followed the classifications provided by EEA on core indicators (Kristensen 2003 ).

Selection of references

ScienceDirect ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/ ) was used to select research articles and studies of the desired quality. To address the two research questions, we selected “river basin” and “sustainable development” as the key terms and a timeframe of the most recent 3 decades (1992–2020) based on the time of the first earth summit on sustainable development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This identified 37,133 references (see Fig.  4 ).

Process for selection of included references. The selection process was conducted between August and September, 2020

By reviewing the abstracts from the top 100 most relevant articles ranked by the database, we found that many of them had a research focus non-relevant to sustainable development in river basins, as such studies only mentioned these terms as either background or general context. We, therefore, modified the eligibility criteria to identify more relevant references. For each of the seven focus areas (excluding Goal 6), we refined the search by adding specific keywords in the title, abstract or keywords, e.g., “river basin” and “energy” for Goal 7 and “river basin” and “climate change” for Goal 13. As before, for the areas of climate change (Goal 13), ES and FR, since they cut across several research topics, many of the identified studies only mentioned these keywords in general in the abstract section. For these three areas, we further added specific keywords in the title search. For Goal 6, we selected “water”, “sustainable development” and “SDGs” as the keywords to confine the selection against the context of SDGs, since almost all the identified papers deal with “water”. In addition, for all seven focus areas, we included only research articles and review articles and excluded books/chapters and encyclopaedias.

The results revealed 1517 research articles/research reviews (see Supplementary Material 1). Since the results for the seven areas are not exclusive, after removing the duplicates, the final result was 1347.

A quasi-automatic process for construction of the qualitative SDG interlinkages model through machine-based text analysis and content analysis

Due to the complexity of SDG interlinkages and the large amount of reference data ( n  = 1347), manual processing to reach a systematic result that was also replicable presented a challenge. A quasi-automatic process was, therefore, developed to help extract and synthesise information, which utilised machine-based text analysis and content analysis. The process is quasi-, not fully automatic, due to the human intervention involving some model decisions and processing carried out by the modellers (see Fig.  5 ).

Machine-based quasi-automatic process for constructing the SDG interlinkages model. NVivo 12 Plus and KH Coder are the software used for a text analysis

Machine processing and human processing were conducted interactively to fulfil the task. Machine processing helped systematically extract information and inform the modellers, who could thus learn more effectively and with a broader perspective over the complex issues involved with SDG interlinkages. Human processing helped make the decisions on selection and collate as well as synthesise information, based on ingrained knowledge and expertise.

At Step 1, a machine-based word and term analysis provided a systematic ranking of words and terms by their frequency. The modellers determined the inclusion criterion of the top 100 based on the consideration over the size of the model and the effectiveness for visualisation. In addition, whether any other words and terms beyond the top 100 but were deemed important to addressing the research questions was checked which resulted in an adjusted list of top words and terms. At Step 2, informed by the results from the auto-coding using NVivo 12 Plus, the modellers collated and grouped the selected top words and terms into a shortlist which was included as key elements of the SDG interlinkages model.

At Step 3, the machine processing (by using KH Code) provided a systematic extraction of the contents for each of the key elements. At Step 4, the machine processing (using KH Coder and Nvivo 12 Plus) provided the results on the auto-mapping of the top words and terms. The modellers, based on a review of the extracted contents from Step 3 and the auto-mapping results, mapped the interactions between the key elements and provided the narratives for each mapped relation (see Supplementary Materials 2 and 3).

The whole process was conducted for each of the seven areas. The mapping results for the seven areas were then collated and synthesised to combine elements in common and remove duplicates.

Expert survey

The preliminary results on selected key elements and the mapping of their linkages from the systematic review were shared with eight experts, all members of the Luanhe Living Lab project. Three members worked on WP1 (LULCC) and WP3 (ES), four members on WP2 (FR) and one member on stakeholder engagement. The purpose of the expert survey was to validate the results as well as provide independent qualitative assessment. For validation, the experts were asked to check and revise the preliminary mapping results and add new linkages they considered important but were missing in the preliminary results. Through this process, the experts provided new perspectives on the narratives and suggested new linkages (e.g., disaggregation of the ecosystem services into three types, i.e., provisioning, regulating and cultural, and the inclusion of potential trade-offs of relevant policies). Qualitative assessment was conducted on the nature of each link (positive, negative, either positive or negative based on the context, or neutral), strength (strong vs. weak), level of importance to the LRB (scale from 0 to 5), and the links with WPs 1–3 (yes/no and how). See Supplementary Material 3.

Field campaign and stakeholders consultation

Seven project team members undertook 10 days of field work along the LRB in October 2019. To grasp first-hand information about the river basin, the team, accompanied by a local governmental expert, visited Panjiakou Reservoir and Daheiting Reservoir (midstream), the source of the LRB (upstream), and the estuary of the river in Laoting (downstream). During the trip, the team arranged two meetings with local governments and LRB conservation and management agencies. Issues of flourishing cage aquaculture in Panjiakou Reservoir and the resulted water pollution and downstream impacts, as well as the impacts of the Government’s ban on cage fish farming in Panjiakou Reservoir in 2019, were pointed out during these meetings (“Luanhe Living Lab” Project Team, 2021). Fishery and its linkages with water pollution, upstream–downstream conflicts, associated health impacts and the impacts from water conservation policies, which were not identified through the SR, were then added in the SDG interlinkages model based on the specific context of the LRB.

On 18 October 2019, a stakeholder workshop, attended by 15 participants from river basin management agencies, water resource conservation institutes, environmental research institutes and universities, was held to discuss future land use planning, policies and associated land use change scenarios. The participants also provided valuation on the ecological services of different types of land in the LRB.

Quantification of the SDG interlinkages

Quantification of the SDG interlinkages was based on the Pearson correlation coefficients calculated using the time-series data (2005–2018) collected from various sources for 27 counties and the integration of the results obtained from WP1 (LULCC) (Xu et al. ), WP2 (FR) (Zhao et al. 2021 ) and WP3 (ES) (Xu et al. 2021a ). Specifically, statistical data were collected for 45 indicators relevant to the variables defined in the qualitative SDG interlinkages model. In addition, for the elements related to LULCC, ES and FR, the time-series data of relevant indicators was obtained from WP1 (9 indicators), WP2 (8 indicators) and WP3 (3 indicators) (see Fig.  2 and Appendix 1 ). Due to the presence of time-series gaps for most of the data, interpolation and extrapolation were conducted to prepare a full time-series for the data.

The SDG interlinkages model for river basins was then converted into a network graph for visualisation through use of Cytoscape software.

Results from the systematic review and text analysis

Machine-based text and content analysis supported identification of the key elements and mapping of their linkages to construct the SDG interlinkages model. Results from the text analysis of the LULCC-related literature (262 included articles) are used as an example to demonstrate the results. The word cloud (Fig.  6 ) indicates that “land use change”, “river basin” and “water” are central words, together with other key words such as “agricultural”, “hydrological”, “climate”, “development”, “management”, “flow”, “quality”, “sediment”, “erosion”, “ecosystem”, “forest”, “groundwater”, and “flood”, etc. This result informs about the major topics covered by the literature.

Word cloud of LULCC literature, based on NVivo 12 Plus

Using KH Coder software, the co-occurrence network of the top 100 most frequent terms for the LULCC literature (Fig.  7 ) can provide information on associations between the top 100 terms. For example, land use and land cover link with ecosystem services and water quality, which further connect with human well-being and anthropogenic activities. Linking with human activities, climate change connects with LULCC and water yield, which further link with surface runoff and stream flow. Land cover change and land degradation link with hydrological response. Land use change links with sediment yield which further connects with stream flow. Though the results were not used directly for building the SDG interlinkages model, they provide useful information from a semantic perspective.

Graph depicting co-occurrence of words and terms for LULCC-related literature using KH Coder. Graph generated for the top 100 most frequent terms with a frequency above nine

Informed by the results from the word cloud analysis and word co-occurrence analysis, the top 100 words and terms identified from the LULCC literature (ranked by frequency using KH Coder software) were grouped into 11 representative terms (see Table 1 ) by the modellers. These terms were included as key elements (nodes) in the interlinkages model. In the next step, a review of the contents extracted by machine processing (using KWIC Concordance provided by KH Coder software) was conducted to map the linkages between the identified key elements (see Supplementary Material 2). After conducting a similar process for each of the seven areas, 60 key elements were identified and their key linkages were mapped (see Supplementary Material 3).

The qualitative SDG interlinkages model for river basins

By synthesising the results from the SR, expert survey and stakeholders’ consultation, the qualitative SDG interlinkages model for river basins was constructed. A summary of the key elements and their major interlinkages is provided in Table 2 . For detailed narratives of the linkages, please see Supplementary Material 3.

Figure  8 presents the framework of the SDG interlinkages model in a graph, which includes the key elements grouped based on DPIR. The full model, including all mapped linkages between key elements, is presented in Fig.  9 . A qualitative assessment of the synergies (positive linkages) and trade-offs (negative linkages) between relevant key elements was conducted based on the SR and the expert survey (see Supplementary Material 3).

Source: Graph generated using Cytoscape Version 3.8.2

Framework of the SDG interlinkages model with key elements classified based on DPIR. Edges with arrows indicate the causal relationships among the four components of DPIR. Edges without arrows indicate the structure of each components of DPIR. The size of nodes and the thickness of edges in the graph are just for the purpose of visualisation and do not have specific meaning.

SDG interlinkages model in network graph. Arrow—indicates the causal relationship between the pair targets; Green links: synergies (positive links); red links: trade-offs (negative links); blue links: either positive or negative depending on the conditions and context

Results of quantitative SDG interlinkages analysis for the LRB at the county level

The constructed qualitative model was applied to a quantitative assessment of the SDG interlinkages at the county level in the LRB. The quantification was conducted by using the correlation coefficients calculated from the time-series data (2005–2018) collected for 27 counties as well as the results from WP1-3.

Three counties, namely Fengning Manchu Autonomous County (upstream), Chengde County (midstream) and Luanzhou City (downstream), were selected for presenting the quantification results. Location of three counties in the LRB is shown in Fig.  10 .

Location of Fengning (upstream), Chengde County (midstream) and Luanzhou City (downstream) in the LRB

Fengning Manchu Autonomous County (Fengning) is located in the northern part of Hebei Province, adjacent to Beijing in the south and Inner Mongolia in the north. Richly endowed with natural resources such as forests and grassland, Fengning acts as an ecological barrier and important water source for Beijing and Tianjin. The Chao River and Luan River originate in Fengning. The county has jurisdiction over nine towns, 17 townships and 309 administrative villages, with a total population of 411,000 (Fengning Manchu Autonomous County Government, 2021). In 2020, it had a regional GDP growth rate of 6.6%.

Chengde County is located in the northeast of Hebei Province and in the midstream of the LRB. It has 23 townships, one sub-district and 378 administrative villages. The Luan River, Laoniu River and eight other rivers converge in the territory of Chengde County. Its GDP growth in 2020 was 4.5% (Chengde County Government, 2021). While the county has shown a high achievement in poverty eradication, it is also a target recipient of financial support from the provincial government towards reducing poverty. Its population has been dropping.

Luanzhou City, a county-level city, is located south of Yanshan Mountain and on the west bank of the Luan River. The city has rich mineral resources, particularly iron ore, which accounts for one-fifth of the national total reserve, and 34 mining companies (Luanzhou City Government, 2020). However, mining and processing activities have led to pressures on water resources. Its 61 villages in 3 towns are located along the Luan River. Two sections of the Luanhe Dike, located at Caiying and the head of canal, are the foci of flood control.

Data availability and data trend for 65 indicators used for the quantification of the SDG interlinkages in three selected counties are shown in Appendix 1 . The results of the quantified SDG interlinkages in three counties are shown in Appendix 2 .

Results of quantitative interlinkages analysis on LULCC, ES, FR and other SDGs by integrating the results from WPs 1, WP2 and WP3

In the SDG interlinkages model, land use was further disaggregated into six types, namely cropland, forest, grassland, built-up land, water area and unused land. Based on the SDG interlinkages model (see Fig.  8 ), LULCC driven by human activities, including agriculture, industry/mining and urbanisation, impacted on water-related ecosystems services, water availability, soil erosion, rural development, and water-related disasters. The changes in water-related ecosystems services, which was further classified into three types, i.e. provisioning, regulating and cultural services, impacted further on agricultural production, economic growth, poverty eradication, and water-related disasters. Water-related disasters, such as flood inundation, may impact various land types causing damages to agriculture, industry and infrastructure, and affect human lives. Using the results from WP1 on the past trend of LULCC (Xu et al. 2021b ), the assessment results from WP3 on the levels of ES (Xu et al. 2021a ), and the results from WP2 on the flood risk assessment (Zhao et al. 2021 ), a correlation analysis was conducted for various land use types, ES, FR and other SDG targets (see Figs.  11 , 12 , 13 ). Other SDG targets include agriculture, industry/mining, economic growth, poverty eradication, rural development, and urbanisation.

Correlation coefficients calculated based on the historical data of LULCC, ES and other SDGs in Fengning Manchu Autonomous County (upstream). Code 1–16 in the first row indicate the same variables in the first column. For the definition of indicators, see Appendix 1

Correlation coefficients calculated based on the historical trends of LULCC, ES and other SDGs in Chengde County (midstream)

Correlation coefficients calculated based on the historical trends of LULCC, ES and other SDGs in Luanzhou City (downstream)

Systematic review: Bias, transparency and replicability

The methodology and process used for conducting the SR may have generated bias in the results. ScienceDirect was the only bibliometric database used for reference retrieval which may have biased the selection results. To overcome this, Scopus and other databases including other languages can be included in future studies. The seven focused areas and relevant key words used for reference retrieval may also have generated bias since the majority of the literature is related to environmental issues but less literature is related to economic and social issues. Including social issues, such as jobs and gender equality, in the reference retrieval may help address this issue. In identifying the key elements, the top 100 most frequent terms were selected as the set due to considerations over the size of the model and the processing time taken by a PC. This may have led to biased results due to exclusion of terms that may have been highly relevant to causal relationships but which were only slightly relevant to semantic relationships.

Related to transparency and replicability, the SR-based process and machine-based semi-automatic data processing provide a transparent methodology and process, which can be replicated in other similar studies in the field of SDG interlinkages in particular, and in network analysis in general. It should be noted that human intervention in the process of machine-based semi-automatic data processing, including the selection of terms, mapping the linkages, and collating and compilation, may influence on the results.

Major SDG synergies and trade-offs in three counties

Fengning manchu autonomous county.

For the interlinkages assessment, only 120 linkages of the total 294 (40.8%) could be quantified for Fengning, due to the limited availability of data. Some of the findings deduced from the quantitative interlinkages analysis follow (also see Appendices 1 and 2). Fengning has shown a declining trend in the share of agricultural output in the regional total output, which positively correlates with an increase in rural poverty (Target 1.2). This trend was associated with a decline in cropland area, and inversely, to an increase in agricultural productivity (Target 2.3), indicating more intensive agricultural practices. The latter factor was positively associated with increased fertilizer inputs (Target 2.4), implying increased pressure on water quality degradation (Target 6.3). Economic development (Target 8.1) and the increase in income levels positively linked with improved domestic water use for drinking and sanitation (Targets 6.1 and 6.2), as well as employment (Target 8.5). Per capita disposable income has increased in both urban and rural areas, but also with increased rural poverty, implying widened inequality (Target 10.1).

For LULCC, Fengning has shown a decreasing trend in areas of cropland, forestland and unused land and an opposite trend in the areas of grassland, built-up land and waters. Increased grassland and built-up land positively correlated with increased livestock production and increased urbanisation. Decreased cropland area, however, correlated with increased crop production (Targets 2.1 and 2.3), indicating more intensive production per unit of land. These trends resulted in reduced ecosystem services of all three types, namely provisioning, regulating and cultural. LULCC and the reduction in ES further linked with increased rural poverty (Target 1.2). On the other hand, economic development (Target 8.1), industrial growth (Target 9.2) and rural infrastructure development (Target 1.a), which correlated negatively with the decrease in cropland and forestland but positively with built-up land, are the major drivers of LULCC.

Chengde County

For the interlinkages assessment, 152 linkages of the total 294 (57.1%) could be quantified, due to the limited availability of data. Economic growth has slowed, with increased poverty (Target 1.2) and decreased employment (Target 8.5) in both rural and urban areas. In contrast to the increase in per capita disposable income in both urban and rural areas, this trend indicates a widening inequality (Target 10.1). In contrast to Fengning, the share of agricultural outputs has increased with decreased productivity (Target 2.3), indicating the practice has become more extensive. This has resulted in less fertilizer inputs (Target 2.4). In terms of water quality (Target 6.3), the chemical oxygen demand in wastewater discharge has decreased, mainly due to stricter industrial water pollution control (Target 6.3) and improved sewage treatment (Target 11.6). However, the ammonia nitrogen discharge has increased. Due to less fertilizer inputs, the increase in ammonia nitrogen discharge may have resulted from cage fishing.

In LRB, the flourishing cage aquaculture in the midstream reservoirs has brought economic benefits (Target 8.1) to local populations but also caused serious water pollution (Target 6.3), such as suspended solids, oxygen depletion substances, nitrogen and phosphorus. Water quality degradation has influenced the supply of safe water to downstream areas, including Tianjin Metropolitan. To address this urgent issue, the Central Government issued a ban on cage fishing in Panjiakou reservoir in early 2019 and forced the removal of all cages within a few months. The ban aims at protecting the water environment (Target 6.5) and ensuring access to safe drinking water (Target 6.1) in downstream cities; however, it also had a sudden impact on the economic development (Target 8.1) and livelihoods of aquaculture farmers in the midstream (see detailed analysis in Wei et al. ( 2021 )). This case demonstrated the off-site trade-offs associated with economic development and governmental policies.

For LULCC, cropland and forestland have decreased. Similarly to Fengning, grassland, built-up land and water areas have increased. This trend in LULCC has contributed to a reduction in the three types of ecosystem services (Target 6.6, Target 15.1, Target 15.2 and Target 15.5).

Luanzhou City

For the interlinkages assessment, due to poor data availability, only 120 linkages of the total 294 (40.8%) could be quantified. Compared with Fengning and Chengde County, poverty reduction (Target 1.2) has been improved in both urban and rural areas, chiefly resulting from industrial development (Target 9.2). Similar to Fengning, the share of agricultural output in the total regional output has been decreasing. In contrast, total food production has increased due mainly to improved productivity (Target 2.3), which has been coupled with increased fertilizer use (Target 2.4). The protected areas from flood and drought impacts for maintaining harvest yield have been reduced, indicating higher exposure to climate-related disasters (Target 11.5).

For LULCC, in contrast with Fengning and Chengde County, cropland and grassland have lowered, but forestland, built-up land (Target 11.3) and waters have been increasing, which has resulted in reduced provisioning and regulating services but increased culture services (Targets 6.6, 15.1, 15.2 and 15.5). The trend in LULCC correlated with increased urbanisation (Target 11.3) and increased crop production (Target 2.3) mainly due to intensified agricultural practices, but decreased livestock production.

Data quality and implications

In relation to the process of quantitative analysis, analysing SDG interlinkages is heavily reliant on the quality and availability of the indicators and data, which poses certain challenges, as many of the SDG indicators are relatively new and may lack either trackable data or even the methodology to collect such data (UNSTAT, n.d.). The current study faced similar challenges in the identification of appropriate indicators for the counties in the LRB that are either identical to the SDG indicators or map well with them. Data were collected for 27 counties in LRB, from which the results of the quantitative interlinkage analysis for three counties are presented in this paper. A total of 164 indicators were identified as relevant to this study; however, availability of the related data varied across the three counties. In Luanzhou County, roughly 63% of the indicators had trackable data, while for Chengde County and Fengning, the data availability was 58% and 49%, respectively. Time-series data were collected, but unevenness was also found across the data points for many indicators. Statistical techniques were applied to fill the gaps in the missing data points, and for the indicators that lacked data availability, qualitative assessments on causal relationships were made on the basis of expert opinions. The interlinkages analysis results, therefore, have some data-related limitations, which constrain more accurate and robust assessments. Improvements in subnational or local SDG indicators and data availability in the future can help overcome some of these constraints.

Policy implications

While the SDGs provide a broad framework that integrates the three dimensions of sustainability, their effectiveness is heavily dependent on how national and subnational plans and policies are formulated and implemented. Interlinkages among the SDGs and the targets may be context- and location-specific, which is highly pertinent for river basins due to the complex interactions that take place among upstream, midstream and downstream regions and communities, along with their implications across the physical and socio-economic spheres. The systematic review and interlinkages mapping provided in this paper can help policymakers visualise, on a general level, the key elements and major interlinkages at the scale of river basins. Furthermore, the quantified SDG interlinkages analysis results for the three counties in the LRB can help identify common challenges and issues across the three counties as well as the specific challenges faced by each county. This can help identify priority issues and coordinate planning that takes into account the upstream–downstream dynamics and their implications for social and economic development of the counties and communities concerned. For instance, in Luanzhou City, there are signs of improvements in poverty reduction associated with industrial development (synergies), whereas poverty increased in Fengning and Chengde, indicating the policy priority of the latter two counties. Agricultural output and productivity increased in general though Chengde County also faces productivity issue. All the three counties face a common challenge of decreasing cropland.

Recognising the uniqueness of the geographical features and their implications for achieving sustainable development at the river basin scale, this paper developed a methodology to analyse SDG synergies and trade-offs from an SDG interlinkage perspective. A novel methodology, which made use of a standardised systematic review together with machine-based text analysis and content analysis, was developed to construct the SDG interlinkages model in general in a transparent way. The modelling included systematic identification of the key elements in the SDG interlinkages system and systematic mapping of their interactions. As the focus is on human–environmental interactions through the physical connectivity at the river basins, the systematic review covered seven areas: land use and land cover change, ecosystem services, flood risks, water (SDG 6), energy (SDG 7), urbanisation (SDG 11) and climate actions (SDG 13). The findings of the systematic review were further verified with expert opinions and stakeholders’ consultation. The river basin level interlinkages model was developed based on a DPIR framework, which is an effective tool enabling communication among relevant stakeholders for identifying the key issues, understanding their mechanisms and finding solutions. The study then involved a quantitative SDG interlinkages analysis with county-level SDG indicator data, collected in China’s Luanhe River Basin. Results of the analysis on the interlinkages of LULCC, ES, and other SDGs were then compared among three case-study counties, namely Fengning Manchu Autonomous County (upstream), Chengde County (midstream) and Luanzhou City (downstream). Going forward, the proposed methodology together with its applications to three counties in the LRB can be replicated in similar studies.

The results, discussed in Sect.  4 of this paper, provide some major insights related to the challenges and priorities of each of these counties, including how they differ across the counties. The results also show why subnational or river basin-level SDG policy integration needs to take into consideration the human–environment interactions from an SDG interlinkage perspective. The results of the analysis for the LRB suggest that water resources management needs to be cognizant about certain issues to ensure efficient management and to avoid conflicts over resources. In the counties studied in this paper, cropland was found to be decreasing, while agricultural practices intensified with impact on water-related ecosystem services. Another issue to take into consideration is the upstream–downstream interactions. The issue of caged aquaculture and its impacts across midstream to downstream show the need for taking into account such interaction in water resource management. Increased domestic water use for drinking and sanitation may have strong synergies with improved nutrition, health, education and gender equality. However, these synergistic effects have not yet been materialised in three selected counties and should be strengthened in an integrated water resource management for the LRB.

Due to the scope of this paper, the analysis did not extend to consideration of certain physical aspects such as analysis of hydrological regime. The focus of the analysis was also limited to within-county interlinkages without going deeper into spatial analysis. Future research agenda may, therefore, incorporate some of these issues and consider ways to use improved data, thus providing more effective results.

Baffoe G, Zhou X, Moinuddin M, Somanje AN, Kuriyama A, Mohan G, Saito O, Takeuchi K (2021) Urban–rural linkages: effective solutions for achieving sustainable development in Ghana from an SDG interlinkage perspective. Sustain Sci 1:3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00929-8

Article   Google Scholar  

Bakhshianlamouki E, Masia S, Karimi P, van der Zaag P, Sušnik J (2020) A system dynamics model to quantify the impacts of restoration measures on the water-energy-food nexus in the Urmia lake Basin, Iran. Sci Total Environ 708:134874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134874

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bangash RF, Passuello A, Sanchez-Canales M, Terrado M, López A, Elorza FJ, Ziv G, Acuña V, Schuhmacher M (2013) Ecosystem services in Mediterranean river basin: climate change impact on water provisioning and erosion control. Sci Total Environ 458–460:246–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.025

Cheng X, Chen L, Sun R, Kong P (2018) Land use changes and socio-economic development strongly deteriorate river ecosystem health in one of the largest basins in China. Sci Total Environ 616–617:376–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.316

Dahal P, Shrestha ML, Panthi J, Pradhananga D (2020) Modeling the future impacts of climate change on water availability in the Karnali River Basin of Nepal Himalaya. Environ Res 185:109430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109430

de Oliveira VA, de Mello CR, Beskow S, Viola MR, Srinivasan R (2019) Modeling the effects of climate change on hydrology and sediment load in a headwater basin in the Brazilian Cerrado biome. Ecol Eng 133:20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.04.021

De Stercke S, Chaturvedi V, Buytaert W, Mijic A (2020) Water-energy nexus-based scenario analysis for sustainable development of Mumbai. Environ Model Softw 134:104854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104854

EEA (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview—European Environment Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/TEC25 . Accessed 15 July 2019

ESCAP (2021) Toolboxes | SDG Help Desk. http://sdghelpdesk.unescap.org/toolboxes?title=&field_sdgs_target_id=All&page=8 . Accessed 14 April 2021.

Gebremicael TG, Mohamed YA, van der Zaag P, Hagos EY (2018) Quantifying longitudinal land use change from land degradation to rehabilitation in the headwaters of Tekeze-Atbara Basin, Ethiopia. Sci Total Environ 622–623:1581–1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.034

Guo C, Ye S, Lek S, Liu J, Zhang T, Yuan J, Li Z (2013) The need for improved fishery management in a shallow macrophytic lake in the Yangtze River basin: evidence from the food web structure and ecosystem analysis. Ecol Model 267:138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.07.013

ICSU (2017) A guide to SDG interactions: from science to implementation. International Council for Science, Paris. https://doi.org/10.24948/2017.01

Book   Google Scholar  

Islam Z, Gan TY (2015) Potential combined hydrologic impacts of climate change and El Niño Southern Oscillation to South Saskatchewan River Basin. J Hydrol 523:34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.01.043

Johnston JM, Barber MC, Wolfe K, Galvin M, Cyterski M, Parmar R (2017) An integrated ecological modeling system for assessing impacts of multiple stressors on stream and riverine ecosystem services within river basins. Ecol Model 354:104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.03.021

Kristensen P (2003) EEA core set of indicators

Le Blanc D (2015) Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a network of targets. Sustain Dev 10:10. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1582

“Luanhe Living Lab” project team (2020) Lessons learnt from synergies and trade—offs between SDGs at the sub—national scale (Luange Living Lab Research Brief)

“Luanhe Living Lab” Project Team (2021) Research Brief: Lessons learnt from synergies and trade-offs between SDGs at the sub-national scale. https://sdginterlinkages.iges.jp/luanhe/index.html

Luo Z, Shao Q, Zuo Q, Cui Y (2020) Impact of land use and urbanization on river water quality and ecology in a dam dominated basin. J Hydrol 584:124655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124655

Miola A, Borchardt S, Neher F (2019) Interlinkages and policy coherence for the Sustainable Development Goals implementation (JRC Technical Reports). Eur Commission Jt Res Centre. https://doi.org/10.2760/472928

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339(7716):332–336. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

Morelli S, Battistini A, Catani F (2014) Rapid assessment of flood susceptibility in urbanized rivers using digital terrain data: application to the Arno river case study (Firenze, northern Italy). Appl Geography 54:35–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.06.032

Nepal S (2016) Impacts of climate change on the hydrological regime of the Koshi river basin in the Himalayan region. J Hydro-Environ Res 10:76–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2015.12.001

Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visback M (2016a) Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goa. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/534320a

Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M (2016b) Policy: map the interactions between sustainable development goals. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/534320a

Nkhonjera GK, Dinka MO (2017) Significance of direct and indirect impacts of climate change on groundwater resources in the Olifants River basin: a review. Global Planet Change 158:72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.09.011

Patole M (2018) Localization of SDGs through disaggregation of KPIs. Economies. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies6010015

Saner R, Saner-Yiu L, Gollub N, Sidibe D (2017) Implementing the SDGs by subnational governments: urgent need to strengthen administrative capacities. Public Adm Policy 20(2):23–40

Google Scholar  

ShadmehriToosi A, Calbimonte GH, Nouri H, Alaghmand S (2019) River basin-scale flood hazard assessment using a modified multi-criteria decision analysis approach: a case study. J Hydrol 574:660–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.04.072

Somanje AN, Mohan G, Lopes J, Mensah A, Gordon C, Zhou X, Moinuddin M, Saito O, Takeuchi K (2020) Challenges and potential solutions for sustainable urban-rural linkages in a Ghanaian context. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020507

Trang NTT, Shrestha S, Shrestha M, Datta A, Kawasaki A (2017) Evaluating the impacts of climate and land-use change on the hydrology and nutrient yield in a transboundary river basin: a case study in the 3S River Basin (Sekong, Sesan, and Srepok). Sci Total Environ 576:586–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.138

UNDESA (2019) United Nations Global SDG Database. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/

UNDG (2015) Mainstreaming the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Reference Guide to UN Country Teams (Issue October)

UNESCAP (2017) Integrated approaches for sustainable development goals planning: the case of goal 6 on water and sanitation

UN-Habitat (2021) A UN System-Wide Urban Monitoring Framework is being developed to support Local and Regional Governments | Urban Agenda Platform

United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. In https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/7891Transforming%20Our%20World.pdf (Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2

United Nations (2020) 2020 High Level Political Forum (HLPF): Exhibitions. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/hlpf/2020#exhibit

United Nations Statistical Commission (2018) SDG Indicators—Global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/

UNSD (2016) Working Group on Interlinkages of Sdg Statistics To Allow for Integrated Analyses in the Monitoring. UNSD, New York

UNSTAT (2021) IAEG-SDGs—SDG Indicators Tier Classification for Global SDG Indicators. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/tier-classification/ . Accessed 5 Oct 2021

Val J, Chinarro D, Pino MR, Navarro E (2016) Global change impacts on river ecosystems: a high-resolution watershed study of Ebro river metabolism. Sci Total Environ 569–570:774–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.098

Wang X, Dong X, Liu H, Wei H, Fan W, Lu N, Xu Z, Ren J, Xing K (2017) Linking land use change, ecosystem services and human well-being: a case study of the Manas River Basin of Xinjiang, China. Ecosyst Services 27:113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.013

Wei H, Xu Z, Liu H, Ren J, Fan W, Lu N, Dong X (2018) Evaluation on dynamic change and interrelations of ecosystem services in a typical mountain-oasis-desert region. Ecol Indic 93:917–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.051

Wei M, Huang S, Li L, Tq Z, Waseem A, Zobia K, Renaud F (2021) Evolution of water quality and biota in the Panjiakou Reservoir, China as a consequence of social and economic development: implications for synergies and trade-offs between Sustainable Development Goals. Sustain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01046-2

Weitz N, Carlsen H, Nilsson M, Skånberg K (2018) Towards systemic and contextual priority setting for implementing the 2030 agenda. Sustain Sci 13(2):531–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0470-0

Wohl E (2017) Connectivity in rivers. Progress Phys Geography Earth Environ 41(3):345–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133317714972

Xia X, Liang Q, Ming X (2019) A full-scale fluvial flood modelling framework based on a high-performance integrated hydrodynamic modelling system (HiPIMS). Adv Water Resour 132:103392. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADVWATRES.2019.103392

Xu J, Barrett B, Renaud F (2021a) Ecosystem services and disservices in the Luanhe River Basin in China under past, current and future land uses: implications for the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustain Sci (forthcoming)

Xu J, Renaud FG, Barrett B (2021b) Modelling land system evolution and dynamics of terrestrial carbon stocks in the Luanhe River Basin, China: a scenario analysis of trade-offs and synergies between sustainable development goals. Sustain Sci 2021(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11625-021-01004-Y

Yang W, Long D, Bai P (2019) Impacts of future land cover and climate changes on runoff in the mostly afforested river basin in North China. J Hydrol 570:201–219

Yang L, Feng Q, Yin Z, Deo RC, Wen X, Si J, Liu W (2020) Regional hydrology heterogeneity and the response to climate and land surface changes in arid alpine basin, northwest China. CATENA 187:104345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104345

Zhao J, Liang Q, Chen H, Xia X, Xu J, Hoey T, Barrett B, Renaud F, Bosher L, Xin Z (2021) Large-scale flood risk assessment under different development strategies: the Luanhe River Basin in China. Sustain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01034-6

Zhou X, Moinuddin M (2017) Sustainable development goals interlinkages and network analysis: a practical tool for SDG integration and policy coherence (issue June). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), London

Zhou X, Moinuddin M (2021) Impacts and implications of the COVID-19 crisis and its recovery for achieving Sustainable Development Goals in Asia: a review from an SDG interlinkage perspective. In: Ramanathan A, Chidambaram S, Jonathan MP, Prasanna MV, Kumar P, Arriola FM (eds) Scenarios of environmental resilience and transformation in times of climate change: effects and lessons from the COVID-19. Elsevier, Amsterdam

Zhou X, Moinuddin M, Li Y (2019) SDG Interlinkages Analysis & Visualisation Tool (V3.0). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), London

Zhou J, Zhao Y, Huang P, Zhao X, Feng W, Li Q, Xue D, Dou J, Shi W, Wei W, Zhu G, Liu C (2020) Impacts of ecological restoration projects on the ecosystem carbon storage of inland river basin in arid area, China. Ecol Indic 118:106803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106803

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted under a project entitled “River basins as ‘living laboratories’ for achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs) across national and sub-national scales”. The project was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC; NE/S012427/1), UK, National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), China, and Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), Japan. The authors also thank and acknowledge the inputs from the local stakeholders who provided input to the research through participation in relevant meetings and the stakeholder consultation workshop. The IGES’ team also received financial support from the IGES’ Strategic Research Fund (FY2019, FY2020 and FY2021) covering part of the personnel costs and publication cost.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), 2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa, 240-0115, Japan

Xin Zhou & Mustafa Moinuddin

School of Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Glasgow, Dumfries, UK

Fabrice Renaud & Jiren Xu

School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Brian Barrett

School of Architecture, Building and Civil Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK

Qiuhua Liang, Jiaheng Zhao, Xilin Xia & Lee Bosher

College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Nankai University, Tianjin, China

Suiliang Huang

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Brunel University, London, UK

Trevor Hoey

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xin Zhou .

Additional information

Handled by Osamu Saito, Institute for Global Environmental strategies, Japan.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 203 KB)

Supplementary file2 (xlsx 324 kb), supplementary file3 (xlsx 41 kb), appendix i indicators, data availability and trend in three selected counties in the lrb.

• Source: Statistics of FN include Chengde Statistical Yearbook (2014–2018) and Statistical Bulletin of Fengning County (2005–2018); Statistics of CD include Chengde Statistical Yearbook (2014–2018) and Statistical Bulletin of Chengde County (2005–2007, 2017); Statistics of LZ include Tangshan Statistical Yearbook (2006–2018) and Statistical Bulletin of Luanzhou City (2016–2018); WP1 refers to the results from WP1; WP2 refers to the results from WP2; WP3 refers to the results from WP3
• +:  Upward trend; − : Downward trend; 0: No change; n.a.: Data not available; FN: Fengning Manchu Autonomous County; CD: Chengde County; LZ: Luanzhou City

Appendix II Assessment of the SDG interlinkages in three selected counties in the upstream, midstream and downstream of the LRB

• Source: Linkages were quantified based on the correlation coefficients of the time-series data (2005–2018) of corresponding indicators and the results from WPs 1–3. When indicators or the data for the indicators were not available, qualitative linkages which were obtained from the synthesised results of the expert survey were used
• The code in bracket in the name of node refers to the SDG target. Definition of the indicators is provided in Appendix 1 . + (S)/ −  (S): strong positive/strong negative linkages; + (W)/ −  (W): weak positive/weak negative linkages; ± (S) or ± (W): either positive or negative strong linkage, or either positive or negative weak linkage. FN: Fengning Manchu Autonomous County; CD: Chengde County; LZ: Luanzhou City

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Zhou, X., Moinuddin, M., Renaud, F. et al. Development of an SDG interlinkages analysis model at the river basin scale: a case study in the Luanhe River Basin, China. Sustain Sci 17 , 1405–1433 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01065-z

Download citation

Received : 07 May 2021

Accepted : 07 November 2021

Published : 04 January 2022

Issue Date : July 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01065-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)
• SDG interlinkages
• River basin
• SDG interlinkages analysis model
• Luanhe River Basin
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

• formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
• searching the extant literature,
• screening for inclusion,
• assessing the quality of primary studies,
• extracting data, and
• analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

• Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
• Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
• Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
• Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
• Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
• Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed inde­­pen­dently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guide­lines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

• Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
• Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
• Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
• A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
• Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
• Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
• Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
• Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
• Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
• Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
• Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
• Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
• Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
• Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
• Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
• Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
• Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
• Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
• Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
• Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
• King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
• Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
• Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
• Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
• Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
• Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
• Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
• Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
• Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
• Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel ​.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent ​.cgi?article ​=1221&context ​=ecis2011 .
• Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
• Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
• Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
• Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
• Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
• Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
• Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
• Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
• Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
• Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
• Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
• Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
• Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
• Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
• Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
• Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
• Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
• Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
• Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
• Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
• Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

• Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
• PDF version of this title (4.5M)
• Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

• Introduction
• Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
• Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
• Concluding Remarks

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 19 March 2024

Analysis of influencing factors for housing construction technology in Desakota Village and town communities in China

• Zhixing Li 1 ,
• Zhuojun Ding 1 ,
• Md. Mehrab Hossain 2 ,
• Md. Tanvir Rahman Rifat 2 ,
• Md. Habibur Rahman Sobuz 2 &
• Yafei Zhao   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0366-8888 3  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  432 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Environmental studies
• Science, technology and society

Rapid urbanization has reformed the peripheries of China’s main cities during the last four decades. The rural areas have been constantly developed through infrastructure development in recent days which introduces a newly semi-urban region referred to as Desakota. The purpose of this research is to discover potential influencing factors of housing construction technology in desakotas of China which needs to be assessed for the implementation of Desakotas forming globally. In this study, a total of six key primary factors and twenty key secondary factors have been shortlisted, which were surveyed by 120 respondents. After the statistical analysis, it is seen that one primary factor, “Architectural and engineering mechanical factors” has been ranked top. Moreover, “Cost, financial and economic evaluation and Analysis of the impact of the natural environment on buildings” both ranked top among twenty secondary factors. This study adds to the body of knowledge by revealing the primary contributing elements for the first time that need to be taken into consideration in the rural and town communities of desakotas in China. The study results could help stakeholders, construction firms, academicians, researchers, and the government to focus their efforts and resources on the significant changes in the Desakotas in preparation for rapid urban development.

Introduction

In the lives of people and society, housing is crucial. It significantly affects our lives and the way we live on a social and economic level. It immediately and directly affects a society’s politics, social life, economy, ecology, health, and education (Sinha, 1978 ). Due to the economy’s rapid growth, a sizable percentage of the global economy was taken up by the building sector (Huang et al., 2021 ). The amount of human activity on earth is constantly growing to meet daily demands. Individual needs are limitless, and the pressure to provide for the needs of the growing population causes the environment to deteriorate either naturally or as a result of human activity (Olusola et al., 2019 ). The building and construction industry was reported to be responsible for 36% of the world’s energy consumption and around 40% of carbon equivalent emissions, making it a crucial sector of the global economy (International Energy Agency (IEA), 2020 ; Nwodo et al., 2019 ). J.G. Nellis and J.A.J.U.S. Longbottom ( 1981 a, 1981 b) studied the housing market in Britain and revealed that the primary determinants of home prices are income, loan rate, loan balance, and the stock market. Squatter colonies have grown up around many urban centers in developing countries due to high rates of poverty and unemployment, as well as rising housing and land costs (Bordignon, 1998 ). Urban dwellers made up 59% of the overall population in 2017, up from 18% in 1978. As a result, the urban population increased by 16 million people each year (Yearbook, 2012 ). As urban areas quickly encroach onto neighboring territory, developing nations frequently display glaring urban-rural wealth disparities (Zhong et al., 2022 ). The line separating urban and rural areas is getting hazier because encroachment on agricultural property is the primary means of expansion (Chen et al., 2020 ; Firman, 2009 ).

China’s construction industry produced more than 24 trillion yuan in total in 2019, making up over 25% of the total national economic output of the nation. However, in the same year, 30% of China’s total carbon emissions came from its building industry, which was the primary contributor to the country’s environmental degradation (Yin et al., 2020 ). In China, the real estate market only recently began to flourish. However, the exorbitantly high cost of homes drew numerous academics to investigate the topic and perform thorough studies (Wang and Jiang, 2016 ). In conclusion, the main perspectives of domestic scholars are as follows. Before 2009, Chinese home prices rose at an average yearly nominal pace of 11%, and this price surge happened at a time when ideologies (from the plan to the market), incomes, urban populations, and policies were rapidly changing (Qiang Li and Chand, 2013 ). China’s urbanization rate climbed from 17.9% to 60.6% between 1978 and 2019, and the urban built-up areas in municipal districts have increased by at least eightfold since 1978 (Xu et al., 2020 ). The income difference between urban and rural areas made up 34% of China’s overall inequality in 2013 (Jain-Chandra et al., 2018 ). This research is motivated by a desire to comprehend the factors influencing the growth in Chinese housing technologies, particularly in an era of altering ideologies, changing wages, urbanization, and governmental reforms. It seeks to provide insight into the underlying causes of China’s housing affordability crisis, as well as to solve the urban-rural economic disparities and agricultural land encroachment that usually accompany rapid urbanization. It also tries to solve the income disparities between urban and rural areas, as well as agricultural land encroachment that usually accompanies fast urbanization. Understanding the dynamics of housing development in China can aid in the creation of effective policies and strategies for fair and sustainable urban growth. In China, traditional methods and technologies are used to construct all types of civil engineering works, including infrastructure and local/domestic buildings. Even though construction projects are up, most scenarios need more sophisticated construction procedures and equipment. Construction work quality and efficiency could be much higher owing to a lack of upgraded materials, new technology, and new equipment. Many studies have been undertaken in China to investigate the transformation of these hybrid spaces into global aspects, but most of them concentrated on researching transitional, ecological, and impacts on socio-cultural phenomena none of the studies provided any solid technique or framework for identifying the fundamental factors which resulted in such urbanization hub in certain regions (Lin et al., 2016 ; Wei, 2007 ; Yang and Qian, 2022 ). Therefore, the purpose is to examine the fundamental variables by rigorous statistical analysis with a framework to define and identify the most impactful factors that significantly influence housing development in China, which takes into account the dynamic changes in ideology, income, urban populations, and law. It seeks to provide insights into the fundamental causes of rising Chinese housing costs and contribute to a better understanding of the housing market in the context of the country’s rapid urbanization and economic expansion. The construction industry has expanded tremendously, accounting for a large amount of national economic output, but the environmental impact of this industry has become a serious concern.

This study investigates housing construction technological factors in the Desakota regions of China, which is crucial for sustainable development. It identifies six primary and twenty secondary factors by thorough literature review and highlights architectural and engineering mechanical factors as the most significant contributors to the recent and upcoming development to form Desakota. Moreover, the study emphasizes the interplay between factors through statistical analysis and qualitative discussion, advocating for a dynamic construction model tailored to each rural and town community’s needs. It categorizes the influencing factors into four tiers to emphasize occupant comfort, effective project management, and financial viability on a broader scale. Finally, the research underscores the importance of cross-industry cooperation, and adaptability is highly required for economic benefits and sustainable initiatives, aiming to guide future development in semi-urban regions all over the globe.

Literature review

Housing is one of the basic needs of people, and everyone should be able to afford it (Alhajri, 2022 ). The case study of Tamer metropolis (Zakaria and Kuusaana, 2020 ) investigates the variables that affect housing affordability. They find that the main determinants of housing affordability are inflation, rapid urbanization, and the cost of construction materials. There is a risk of the government partnering with private real estate developers to build apartments using locally affordable building materials. The literature suggests that factors related to supply and demand can affect housing affordability individually or in combination (Trimbath and Montoya, 2002 ). Stegman ( 1969 ) provides empirical support for residential site selectors, with community considerations taking precedence over workplace accessibility. The country’s macroeconomic situation, household formation rates, household demographics, housing cost financing, and rapid urbanization are all demand factors (Ato Kwamena Senayah, 2016 ). Bossuyt et al. ( 2018 ) examine the relationship between self-build and the wider planning and housing system, proposing self-build as a cornerstone of a resident-led land development strategy that reconfigures the position of players in the housing supply. The cost and availability of land, labor, building materials, social infrastructure, and housing finance can all become supply issues. House prices, household income, purchasing habits, and mortgage rates all have an impact on housing affordability (Chatzigagios and Panagopoulos, 2015 ). The affordability of self-build housing is an issue in the face of the high cost of sustainable building materials and technologies. The investment required to improve environmental performance is often considered incompatible with the affordability goals of self-build house builders (Taemthong and Chaisaard, 2019 ). The objective of another study by Ajayi ( 2017 ) was to investigate the variables affecting housing delivery in Lagos State, Nigeria. Difficult access to land, paralysis in the financial and mortgage systems, high construction costs, poverty levels, and government regulation all have an impact on housing delivery. There are several difficulties in providing housing, some of which are related to the political and economic climate, expensive land acquisition costs, affordability of youth harassment, low compensation, and low minimum wages. The cost of building affordable housing in Saudi Arabia is largely influenced by many factors, including lack of planning, standard materials, length of contract duration, design quality, material costs, design changes, site conflicts, unsatisfactory site financial management, and previous experience. The fact that the survey was only open to project participants (experts) from the three main categories of contractors, consultants, and real estate developers/investors with at least 10 years of experience in the Saudi Arabian residential construction project market is one of the limitations of the study (Assaf et al., 2010 ). Nyamushamba ( 2016 ) investigated how illegal colonies affect economic growth in the Zimbabwean border town of Chirundu. Gan et al. ( 2022 ) identified five categories of factors that influence the development of green building technologies in rural China, namely economic, technical, political, social, and managerial. According to this study, the inability of the government to provide adequate services to the land, the lack of affordable housing, the growth of the existing population, and its impact on crime, health, economic development, and land degradation are the main obstacles to the development of the border. Anabestani ( 2014 ) sought to identify how rural settlement patterns are affected by social changes in the daily lives of villagers. Chan et al. ( 2018 ), in investigating the key barriers to the adoption of green building technologies in the Ghanaian construction market, concluded that the potential influencing factors are government barriers, human barriers, knowledge and information barriers, market barriers, and cost and risk barriers. Of these, high cost, lack of government incentives, and lack of financing schemes (e.g., bank loans) were the top three key factors. This study found that the diversity of housing patterns in Binalood County was 35.4%; race, housing type, family structure, migration, social stratification, security, religion, and tradition were some of the sociological factors that influenced neighborhoods. According to this argument (Iranmanesh and Imantalab, 2014 ), four basic factors that influence housing in a given area are land patterns, livelihood-based economy, climatic factors, and socio-cultural conditions of the population. Neighborhood changes, especially in rural suburban areas, provide a path for different land use patterns (Omofonmwan and Kadiri, 2007 ). Ofek and Portnov ( 2020 ), based on a national survey conducted in Israel in 2016, the study found that raising awareness of the benefits of green building has different impacts on different stakeholder groups. Therefore, in order to promote cleaner production in the construction industry, a user-tailored strategy should be used, aiming to stimulate interest in green building among various stakeholder groups.

Another study by F. Li et al. ( 2022 ) examined the factors that influence the green development practices of Chinese construction firms based on their own green development practices. This study used literature analysis to illustrate how technical, organizational, and environmental factors influence the adoption of green development practices by construction firms. Despite the 99.6% accuracy of the prediction model, the large discrepancy between the predicted and actual values of the number of patents remains an issue in this study. Factors and issues that hinder orderly infrastructure development were studied in the suburban living areas of the Kumasi metropolitan area (Owusu and Asamoah, 2005 ). Liu et al. ( 2020 ), based on a review of existing studies and the characteristics of building retrofitting in China, concluded that the factors affecting the achievement of green retrofitting in China can be classified into four categories, namely: management, finance, knowledge information, and technology. Following a survey of land for housing retrofit in the peri-urban area of Kumasi, Ghana, four measures were recommended: use of site and service strategies, landowner funding for infrastructure provision, cooperation between traditional authorities and public sector agencies/departments, and implementation of planning and development legislation. The study made recommendations for action to address infrastructure and service provision in the peri-urban settlements of Kumasi, Ghana. Qianwen Li et al. ( 2018 ) A theoretical and quantitative research model of urban residents’ willingness to pay for green housing was constructed using five first-tier cities in China as an example. The following five distinct effects were identified, which are (1) the purpose of purchase is divided into three dimensions: willingness to pay for economic and practical purposes, willingness to pay for investment, and willingness to pay for comfort and pleasure. Willingness-to-pay barriers were divided into internal (security/functional) and external (economic/policy) risks. (2) There are no significant differences between gender and income level, marital status and household permanent residence, education and housing type, and household permanent residence in willingness to pay for economic utility. (3) Education plays a moderating role between anchor price and residents’ willingness to pay. (4) The order of influence of significant WTP influences was: group pressure(+) > functional risk(−) > individual attitude(+) > perceived behavioral control(+) > self-worth(−) > security risk(−) > ecological value(+). (5) Residents are most willing to purchase 3-star green homes when government subsidies are available; in the absence of subsidies, the maximum incremental cost residents are willing to pay is $51–100/m 2 . It is found that proper housing construction requires effective land tenure, land use mapping, and land development analysis because land is a major determinant of production factors. Gan et al. ( 2015 ) argued that owners are the key drivers of urbanization and found through an empirical study from the owners’ perspective that the key factors that hinder the adoption of supply chain management by construction companies are: economic viability, awareness, project stakeholder support, legislative regulations, supply chain operability, resource risk, and project management model.

The researchers Olusola et al. ( 2019 ) aimed to assess the relationship between these construction technology influencing factors and housing formation patterns in international regions. Using a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach and a life-cycle model of neighborhood change, a relationship between housing development patterns and their determinants was hypothesized. The results of the structural model indicate that housing growth patterns in international towns are highly influenced by physical characteristics (0.13) and neighborhood characteristics (0.11). This study suggests that the Nigerian government takes these important factors into account when formulating or developing housing construction plans. In the context of Vision 2030, Alhajri ( 2022 ) assesses housing issues in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and supports rational housing initiatives. The Relative Importance Index (RII) and cardinality were used to assess the survey responses of housing experts. According to the study, the greatest barriers were high residential land costs (RII = 0.89), high construction costs (RII = 0.87), and high urbanization rates (RII = 0.76). The study found that the results for the six challenges examined differed significantly based on participant demographics. The VAT exemption program, the developmental housing program, and forms of ownership were the most successful empowerment programs (RII = 0.82, 0.73, and 0.73, respectively). This study recommends that the government reconsider some of these initiatives and reassess the difficulty of accessing affordable housing. J.G. Nellis and J.A. Longbottom ( 1981 a, 1981 b) identified the causes of the sharp rise in house prices and listed other important reasons for this situation. They used error correction estimation methods to examine the key variables that affect house prices in the UK. They concluded that mortgage lending had a significant effect on house prices, while secondary variables included mortgage interest rates and building society stock holdings.

According to the above studies, the factors that have an impact on construction technology in different types, and different attributes of regions have been much studied, and numerous factors are encapsulated in the four macro elements of politics, economy, culture, and nature. In the process of urban construction, due to the relatively weak self-organization, strong government intervention, and serious commercialization, the two macro-influencing factors of politics and economy dominate, and the factors mostly depend on the macroeconomic situation, supply and demand, and the economic condition of the subject and the object. In the process of rural construction, the countryside, as a weak point of development, has more freedom in politics and economy compared with the systematic planning and management of big cities, but the countryside, as the most primitive human settlement, is the cradle of human literature and painting, and the two macro factors of culture and nature dominate. The urban-rural fusion village and town, which is produced under the general trend of economic domination, is a complex with multiple influences of politics, economy, culture, and nature, and because of its composite properties, it cannot fully stimulate the potential of urban-rural fusion village and town by copying the urban or rural development model. The development of urban-rural integrated villages and towns needs to be explored. Existing studies have mostly focused on the influence of urban and rural building technology influences, while studies on rural-urban integration towns have mostly focused on political and cultural aspects, and obtaining data on rural settlement patterns is one of the main obstacles to this research. This argument (Iranmanesh and Imantalab, 2014 ) states that the four basic factors that influence housing in a given area are landform, livelihood-based economy, climatic factors, and socio-cultural conditions of the population. However, due to the difficulty of obtaining data, specific influencing factors were not studied in a breakdown.

Therefore, this study collected data from various types of experts engaged in related work or research, such as engineers, contractors, homeowners, university students, and other related groups, always through an objective medium as an intermediary to obtain data, to somewhat circumvent the difficulty of direct data acquisition, and to test the data through structural equation modeling and quantitative analysis of the acquired elements, Cronbach’s alpha test, through a hypothesis and verification of the research process, so as to construct a set of research methods suitable for the sequence of factors influencing the construction technology of urban–rural integration type villages and towns, and provide guidance to the construction of urban–rural integration type villages and towns.

Research methodology

This study focuses on identifying and analyzing the housing construction technology factors of the Desakota region of China. The factors were identified from a rigorous literature review and sociocultural needs assessment at the Desakota regions. The primary factors are the crucial and elementary ones, and six of these have been identified. Moreover, the secondary factors contributed a significant impact on the primary factors, and twenty of these secondary factors were also identified. Then, with the help of an expert panel, a complete discussion about the primary and secondary factors of housing construction technology was held. The expert panel consists of a group of civil engineers, architects, construction project managers, and contractors who have more than 10 years of working experience in the related field, related university Professors, and related university students who have appropriate knowledge about this research topic. A questionnaire was prepared to analyze the necessity of these factors and their influence over that region for housing construction technology. Figure 1 shows the conducting process of this study with a sequential flowchart. These steps were performed sequentially during the progress of this study.

A flowchart for a two-phase research procedure is shown which comprises the following stages: framework development for the literature review and questionnaire survey, and statistical analysis with the discussion of results.

Questionnairre design

Initially, an extensive review of existing studies on housing construction technology in China, particularly in Desakota town and village regions, was conducted. This allowed for a deeper understanding of the various influential factors affecting the construction industry globally. These studies highlighted numerous technological factors associated with specific construction sectors, which can impact the economic conditions of the outer peripheries in these regions. From this pool of studies, a total of twenty significant factors were selected to create a questionnaire, which was divided into primary and secondary sections. The selection process considered the importance level of these factors in previous studies and their relevance to the construction industry environment in China.

Additionally, categorizing these technological factors into sections is crucial for better understanding their impacts. This subdivision assists in expediting the identification of sources and analyzing the effects within a shorter timeframe. Once the questionnaire was prepared, incorporating a five-point Likert Scale evaluation system was deemed suitable for assessing the factors. Likert Scale-based questionnaires are efficient for data collection, making them a favorable choice for surveys, and the responses gathered provide reliable data based on respondents’ personal experiences. The questionnaire designed for this study consisted of multiple sections. The initial section collected basic information about the respondents, including detailed demographic data. The main section focused on housing construction technological factors and the corresponding Likert Scale evaluation information. Respondents were requested to rate the effects of these technological factors on a five-point scale, ranging from “1: Not at all Likely” to “5: Extremely Likely.” Table 1 displays the selected construction technology factors, along with the literature sources used in the study (Table 2 ).

Questionnaire survey

Following the preparation of the questionnaire, a field survey was carried out to collect data on the significance of the 26 identified influencing factors within the desakota regions of China. Approximately 120 individuals associated with the construction sector were interviewed as part of this survey. The objective was to rank these factors based on their importance. The authors visited various construction sites located in different towns and villages within the Desakota region and conducted interviews with individuals ranging from marginal-level workers to executives. The initial round of interviews focused on individuals directly involved in the construction sites, such as site engineers, contractors, site supervisors, subcontractors, foremen, and laborers.

Each interviewee was asked to provide their opinions and rate the influencing factors on a scale of 1–5. Subsequently, the authors also interviewed company officials who were engaged in administrative and offsite activities, including structural engineers, architects, managing directors, business development associates, planners, and financial advisors. These interviews provided comprehensive insights into the influence of housing construction factors from both the perspectives of on-site workers and those involved in other aspects of the construction industry. Furthermore, the field survey also gathered crucial information about the current practices related to available machinery and its implications applied by the contractors involved in construction projects influenced by the factors present in the Chinese construction industry. To enhance convenience, an example of a questionnaire with responses from a respondent has been included at the end of this study. Once all the data were collected, the study proceeded to the statistical analysis phase.

Data collection and analysis

For data collection purposes, more than sixty ongoing construction projects were surveyed. Almost 140 construction personnel were given the questionnaire, and among them, 120 responded adequately, which is a response rate of about 86%. Table 3 describes the general information of the respondents. About 69 of the respondents were male and 51 were female. Moreover, most of the respondents were between the ages of 30–40, and the majority of them were engineers and architects. Though people from all major divisions responded to the survey, most of the surveyed projects were based in the southern regions of China (24.2%) and northern regions of China (21.7%). The reason behind this is the abundance of construction projects and the high rate of respondents from these areas. To facilitate further discussion and comprehension, the data analysis results were presented in graphs and tables. To offer an overview of the respondents’ general information and their awareness of lean construction principles, percentage and frequency distribution were used.

Relative Importance Index (RII)

The five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was adopted and transformed to the relative importance index (RII) for each factor as follows:

In the above ( 1 ) equation, ‘ W ’ is the weighting given to each factor by the respondents (ranging from 1 to 5), ‘ A ’ is the highest weight (i.e., 5 in this case), and ‘ N ’ is the total number of respondents in this study (i.e., 81 in this study). The RII value ranges from 0 to 1, which is the higher the value of RII, the more important the factor affecting quality in construction. The RII was used to rank the different factors. The discussion will be made when the RII is classified as the most preferred primary and secondary factors. The Relative Importance Index (RII) was calculated by the tool SPSS and Microsoft Excel 2019.

Data validation test (Cronbach’s alpha test)

It was critical to conduct proper checks to ensure the credibility and authenticity of the independently obtained data from respondents from various designations and organizations. Due to the inclusion of several Likert questions in the questionnaire, the Cronbach Alpha test, a generally used measure of reliability, was used in this study. Cronbach’s Alpha measures the internal consistency of the survey’s highlighted issues and generates a value ranging from 0 to 1. Higher numbers suggest more item consistency (Cronbach, 1951 ). According to previous research, an alpha score between 0.70 and 0.95 indicates strong internal consistency and is regarded as acceptable (Gliem and Gliem, 2003 ). The data is reliable when the alpha value is higher than 0.70 (Abas et al., 2015 ; Hayes and Krippendorff, 2007 ; Tavakol and Dennick, 2011 ). The required data for this study were collected independently from various respondents of various designations and organizations. So, it is important to analyze to check the reliability and validity of the independently collected data.

Results and discussions

Background information of respondents.

Table 3 displays the bibliographic characteristics of the participants in the survey, which was conducted throughout China. An equal number of questionnaires were distributed in each region of the country. The majority of the data was collected from respondents in the southern and northern regions, with ~29 questionnaires completed by each group. The result reveals that 57.5% of the respondents were male, while the remaining 42.5% were female. Concerning the organizational characteristics of the respondents, 18.3% worked in project management organizations, 16.7% in mechanical engineering organizations, 10.8 percent in architectural firms, 19.2% in engineering firms, and 12.5% in educational institutions.

The rest of the respondents were employed by subcontracting organizations, accounting for 23%. These organizations represent the contracting, consulting, and client/owner entities within the Chinese construction industry. The survey data indicates that a significant proportion of the respondents were affiliated with consulting departments, which encompassed project management, architectural, and engineering organizations. Additionally, a large portion of the respondents worked in the contracting sector, which included general contracting, subcontracting, and specialty contracting organizations.

In this research, a considerable portion of the participants (23.3%) had a professional tenure ranging from 5 to 10 years, while 32.5% had less than 5 years of experience. Approximately 18.3% of respondents reported having 10–20 years of experience, with the remaining individuals having over 20 years of experience (25.8%) within the Chinese construction industry. Regarding academic qualifications, among all respondents, 36.7% held a bachelor’s degree. A significant majority of the participants (52.5%) possessed postgraduate qualifications such as a master’s degree or Ph.D., while 8.3% held a diploma degree. The inclusion of such background information about the respondents enhances the overall quality and reliability of the findings in this study, contributing to the robustness of the feedback obtained.

It is pertinent to mention that data visualization presents raw data through graphical representations that allow viewers to explore the data and uncover deep insights with ease while enabling researchers to make a quick and compelling comparison of the models. Therefore, the raw survey records are illustrated in the form of a stacked bar plot, doughnut diagram, frequency distribution, and Ridgeline chart. A brief discussion of each diagram is presented in this sub-section. As stated above, a total of 120 databases were collected from various construction sites located in different towns and villages within the Desakota region. The details of collected information, i.e., ratings given by 120 individuals, are illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3 , respectively, for primary and secondary factors, in the form of stacked bar plots. Additionally, illustrations of the distribution of respondents‘ feedback are presented in Figs. 4 – 7 . Herein, the score, i.e., the rating that was assigned against each feedback, is plotted along with data distribution. The corresponding mu and sigma are also presented in tables inside each figure.

Stacked bar plot illustrating the ratings assigned to six primary factors by 120 individuals.

Stacked bar plot illustrating the ratings assigned to twenty secondary factors by 120 individuals.

This figure displays the distribution of feedback provided by respondents for the six primary factors, including the assigned ratings and corresponding mu and sigma values in a table.

This figure displays the distribution of feedback provided by respondents for the twenty secondary factors, including the assigned ratings and corresponding mu and sigma values in a table.

Ridgeline chart displaying the distribution of respondent’s feedback for primary factors, with ratings plotted against data density.

Ridgeline chart displaying the distribution of respondent’s feedback for secondary factors, with ratings plotted against data density.

On the other hand, the demographic information of the survey respondents is presented in Figs. 8 – 13 . Herein, a doughnut diagram is used to demonstrate the overall information. Age group in Fig. 8 , gender details in Fig. 9 , educational qualification in Fig. 10 , professional status in Fig. 11 , years of professional experience in Fig. 12 , and geographic location in Fig. 13 are presented.

This doughnut diagram illustrating the age distribution of the 120 survey respondents. Each segment represents a specific age group, providing a visual breakdown of the distribution among respondents.

This doughnut diagram illustrating the gender distribution of the 120 survey respondents.

This doughnut diagram represents the educational qualifications of the survey respondents, categorized into three groups: diploma, undergraduate, and graduate.

This doughnut diagram presenting the professional status distribution of the survey respondents across 16 distinct groups.

This doughnut diagram illustrating the distribution of years of professional experience among survey respondents, categorized into four groups: less than 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 10 to 20 years, and over 20 years.

This doughnut diagram displaying the geographic distribution of survey respondents across five zones in China: Central, East, West, North, and South.

According to the data depicted in Fig. 12 , a sizeable portion of the participants (~23.3%) had between 5 and 10 years of professional experience, while 32.5% had <5 years of experience. Also seen, in the Chinese construction industry, ~25.8% of respondents have more than 20 years of experience, while 18.3% have between 10 and 20 years of experience. A detailed discussion has been presented in the subsequent section.

Reliability assessment of primary and secondary factors

In this study, Cronbach’s Alpha tests were performed for the data validation of the designated primary factors in the survey. The internal consistency data were obtained from the various respondents, and that was analyzed using Cronbach’s Alpha test. Tables 4 and 5 show the overall reliability statistics of Cronbach’s Alpha for the six primary factors and twenty secondary factors, respectively. In this study, a constant five-point Likert Scale-based questionnaire was used for data collection, and the alpha value obtained for the primary and secondary factors is denoted as 0.909 and 0.972, respectively. According to Tables 4 and 5 , both alpha values indicate the excellent internal consistency region of Table 3 . So, the data obtained from the field survey for this study has excellent internal consistency.

Statistical analysis

Primary factors ranking.

The overall statistical analysis of all the 26 influencing factors used for this study is represented in the following tables. In Table 6 , the primary influencing factors, and in Table 7 , the secondary influencing factors for the housing construction technology in Desakota village and town communities in China are shown after the statistical analysis. The overall ranking of the factors was obtained through RII calculation using Eq. ( 1 ). Moreover, the tables provide detailed statistics about the mean and standard deviation of the calculated factors. For example, the mean of factor B1 (human factors of participants, users) is 3.9193, which contains a standard deviation of 1.18308.

As mentioned before, the influencing factors were ranked according to their RII value. Among the six primary influencing factors from Fig. 14 , “Architectural and engineering mechanical factors (RII = 0.8149)” are the most significant primary factors of housing construction technology in China. “Adaptability and maintainability of the project (RII = 0.8112)” and “Construction project surroundings and market conditions (RII = 0.8037)” are the second and third-ranked influencing factors which are almost nearby in numerical value. However, the next three ranked influencing factors are “Sustainable construction materials and resources (RII = 0.7963)”, “Economic benefits of the project (RII = 0.7876)” and “Human factors of participants, users (RII = 0.7839)”. All of them have an RII value above 0.7, which indicates a significant amount of importance to take into consideration.

This figure displays the rank of six primary factors based on their Relative Importance Index (RII) values.

Secondary factors ranking

Then the 20 secondary influencing factors were ranked according to their RII value obtained from the data analysis. Table 7 shows the statistical analysis of these twenty factors in detail such as mean and standard deviations. Figure 15 shows the ranked value among these twenty factors. In terms of the level of importance, “Cost, financial and economic evaluation (RII = 0.823) and Analysis of the impact of the natural environment on buildings (RII = 0.823)” contain the same RII value, so these two factors are highly important for the housing constructions in the researched region. Additionally, “Reasonable maintenance and replacement processes (RII = 0.8186)”, “Support from authorities and policies (RII = 0.8161)”, “Proper disposal of waste generated (RII = 0.8099)”, “Project managers have a management awareness (RII = 0.8062)”, “Rational materials supply chain and tendering process (RII = 0.8050)”, “Use of resource-friendly materials for construction (RII = 0.8037)” and “Relevant aging and low carbon policies should be considered (RII = 0.8012)” are highly important secondary influencing factors one after another. All of these influencing factors are directly linked with the primary factors, and that is shown demographically in Fig. 15 .

This figure displays the rank of twenty secondary factors based on their Relative Importance Index (RII) values.

And lastly, the other secondary factors also have significant RII values, these are: “Construction operators are safety conscious (RII = 0.7988)”, “Ease of transport, installation and dismantling (RII = 0.7975)”, “Site selection to avoid unfavorable locations for planning (RII = 0.7963)”, “Compliance with appropriate energy efficient design codes (RII = 0.7950)”, “Create favorable conditions for construction management of retrofit (RII = 0.7938)”, “Safety of users and site environment (RII = 0.7925)”, “Effective regulatory and control measures (RII = 0.7913)”, “Cross-industry market and full cooperation between upstream and downstream (RII = 0.7876)”, “Decision makers have a sound energy saving retrofit plan (RII = 0.7826)”, “Generation of indirect economic effects (RII = 0.7789)” and “Good input-output ratio ROI (RII = 0.7764)”. The RII values of these factors are pretty high, and that indicates their level of importance also. Moreover, none of the factors are less important in terms of RII value. All of these factors imply a remarkable influence over housing construction technology in those particular regions.

Relationship between the primary and secondary factors based on expert opinions

The last phase of this study established the relationship between the primary and secondary factors that will demonstrate a clear understanding of the most influential factors of this research. For this process, the opinions of the stakeholders who possess the expertise and long-term on-field experience in the construction sector were required. Though this study discusses twenty-six influencing factors of the housing construction technology in desakota village and town communities in China, adopting these measures for all these factors cumulatively is troublesome for the decision-makers. For this reason, the key factors which are highly important for housing construction technology were shortlisted. Figure 16 shows the factor relationship diagram. The diagram integrates aligned primary and secondary factors obtained through RII analysis from all the field surveys. These factors are categorized under three tiers, which are discussed below:

This factor relationship diagram illustrating the hierarchical linkage of primary and secondary factors through three tiers which highlights the most significant factors for this study.

Tier 1—Architectural and engineering mechanical factors/Analysis of the natural environment in the building

The natural environment provides the best functional elements to a building. The architectural and engineering mechanical factors are widely used to control the inner space in a way that keeps the houses more comfortable for the occupants (Chen, 2004 ). The architectural and engineering factors analyze the natural surroundings to control the functional elements in an ergonomic way for the inhabitants of the houses.

As technological changes are required to control the interior of the houses, environmental analysis such as temperature, humidity, precipitation, and ventilation provides the designated values to attain comfort in houses. These two top-ranked primary and secondary factors, respectively need special endeavor for the construction of future communities in the desakota regions. Moreover, the architect and HVAC engineer should design the houses as an irremovable part of the built environment so that the occupants can act as a potential marketing element for the upcoming generations (Zallio and Berry, 2017 ).

Tier 2—Construction project management/supply chain management

Good project management can result in a better quality project for the end users. Construction adaptability and maintenance ensure success at the end of the project as it totally depends on the project’s surroundings and market conditions (Douglas, 2006 ). Housing construction faces many problems during the establishment process and these barriers should be mitigated through effective management. The secondary factors reflect the actual barriers that can be faced in the construction stage. The materials availability and supply to the site from the local market is the major concern for the successful project implementation. Because user-friendly materials are the primary resources to complete projects as per the customer’s requirement. On-time delivery of materials at the site and maintaining the budget of materials with the market price is a common challenge to the project’s success (Famiyeh et al., 2017 ).

Moreover, the construction of the houses may require much maintenance during the service period. These factors are highly recommended to take action at the serviceability phase with reasonable process and cost. The tenderer must ensure the “Defect Liability Period (DLP)” from the constructor group for a negotiable replacement and repair process for the end users. These combined influential factors must be taken heavily for successful project implementations.

Tier 3—Financial evaluation of the project

A fluent cash flow is vital for completing a construction project in business. The economic benefits are the primary goals for the project stakeholders of both parties. The client invests a solid amount of money into the project to ensure profit during the service period of the project. The low-quality project will result in financial insolvency and decrease the interest for the housing constructions in that region. That is why high-quality projects must be attained in a strategic way to ensure a sound amount of profit (Dziadosz and Rejment, 2015 ). The customers require the best quality buildings with other user-friendly functions for a reasonable amount of money. It depends on the clients and designer what amount of quality-based elements they will incur into the building so that they can acquire a good cash flow along with the best services to the customers. To achieve that both clients and contractors should avoid financial insolvency at any stage of the project.

Discussions

This study combines a quantitative and qualitative technique of the influencing factors of housing construction technology in the desakota village and town communities in the context of China. The factors identified through the literature review, which were incorporated in the survey, offered a precise scenario of the major influencing factors that can be incorporated into the housing constructions in China. The statistical analysis of the influential factors offers a quantitative approach to analyzing the construction technology and assessing the current practices while gathering knowledge to provide a comprehensive qualitative discussion of construction technology in China. According to the findings of this study, Architectural and engineering mechanical factors incorporate great influences during the execution phase as the primary factors, and cost, financial and economic evaluation, and analysis of the impact of the natural environment on buildings among the secondary factors are termed as the most influential factors of the housing constructions in Desakotas in China.

Previously a study conducted by Guo et al. ( 2022 ) on the analysis of spatial patterns and socioeconomic activities of urbanized rural areas in Fujian province, China, reported that spatial clustering, proximity to well-developed urban centers, and transportation accessibility influenced the development of the urbanized rural areas. They found four representative socioeconomic activities in the urbanized rural areas: an urban-like housing model, diverse non-agricultural activities, transportation improvements, and sufficient health services. Zhu et al. ( 2022 ) conducted a study on the Low-Carbon Construction System of Desakota Village-and-Town Communities in Zhejiang Province of China, and they established a correlation evaluation model to provide the basis for the optimization and improvement of a low-carbon construction system from multiple dimensions and perspectives, thus providing a theoretical basis and practical guidance for the future low carbon construction of desakota villages and towns. However, little research has been conducted on the desakota village and town communities in China for the influences over the occupants on housing construction technological requirements. In this study, the primary factors reflect the major concerns over the desakota regions that are highly recommended by the users for the comfort of this type of semi-urban community. The secondary influencing factors focus on the detailed phenomena that can assist the desakotas in the rapid growth of housing development.

The significance of this study lies in its contribution to the understanding and enhancement of housing construction technology in the Desakota communities of China. By identifying and ranking the factors that exert the most influence on construction processes, this research equips stakeholders, including government authorities, developers, designers, and builders, with a comprehensive framework for making informed decisions (Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz, 2013 ). This study reflects that a rapid transition of the villages and towns requires extensive use of contemporary and user-friendly materials in modern houses. As semi-urbanization becomes a phenomenon beyond China, the insights obtained from this study can be extrapolated to similar environments in other countries facing rapid urban development (L. Li et al., 2022 ). The tiered relationship between architectural factors, environmental analysis, project management, supply chain management, and financial evaluation provides a universal framework that can be tailored to diverse contexts.

Additionally, the effective supply of required materials also possesses vital changes in the construction stages. However, it is required to take proper caution to not cause any harm to the local surroundings of the site by improper use of materials and machinery. The ease of supply, use, and dismantlement requires safety management and waste management at the site for environment-friendly conditions. However, Energy efficiency has been a major issue in that region by using low carbon emitting materials which need to be taken into account by the policymakers (J. Li and Colombier, 2009 ). The project management policies such as adaptability and maintainability of the project and economic benefit of the project as primary factors can constitute noticeable changes in the urban developments, which has been reported by the respondents in the field survey. Decision-makers, construction operators, construction managers, health & safety executives, and policymakers require extra awareness from the planning stage to successfully implement the project at the site. These factors can provide a sound and neat boost to work productivity during the housing construction in the Desakota region (Shao, 2015 ). Meanwhile, creating favorable conditions for construction management of retrofit and maintenance and cross-industry market and full cooperation between upstream and downstream will increase the economic benefits to the end users of the project (Sun et al., 2022 ).

Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions.

In the wake of rapid urbanization and the emergence of Desakota regions in China, housing construction technology has gained paramount importance in ensuring the development of sustainable, comfortable, and efficient living spaces. Desakota villages and towns are termed semi-urban and transitional communities in the literature due to their complex structure system. Thus, housing development in these regions of China requires many factors to be considered. The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the key factors that underpin housing construction technology in Desakota communities in China. The research reveals a tiered relationship between architectural and engineering mechanical factors, environmental analysis, construction project management, supply chain management, and financial evaluation. These factors collectively contribute to the holistic development of housing projects in these semi-urban regions. This study offers a prime focus on the most influential housing construction technology factors in the desakota villages and town communities in China. The literature review shortlisted a total of six primary factors and twenty secondary factors, which were surveyed by the regional peoples. These factors were identified and categorized based on their significance to prepare the questionnaire for the survey.

After conducting a rigorous statistical analysis of survey data obtained from 120 respondents, the influencing factors were ranked on a primary and secondary type basis according to the RII index. It was observed that architectural and engineering mechanical factors ranked top among all the primary factors with an RII value of 0.8149, and this also correlated with the secondary factors. Additionally, “Cost, financial and economic evaluation and Analysis of the impact of the natural environment on buildings” both ranked top among the secondary factors with an RII value of 0.823. Besides, a qualitative discussion on how the influencing factors work and benefit the projects is discussed in this study. The differences in the factors may create nuances in the understanding of the developers, and hence, a relationship is established between the primary and secondary factors, which signify the aligned factors. The relationship states that engineering and mechanical factors can impose valuable changes in the natural environmental surroundings of the buildings, which can be achieved through proper energy efficiency. Also, the construction materials, supply chain, and project management have a slight relationship in ranked requirements which also need to be a major consideration during construction. However, the benefits of a project are mainly monetary and that can only be achieved by an accurate financial evaluation at a certain stage of the project (Zou et al., 2007 ). The purpose of this study was to lay the groundwork for the proposal of a regionalized, differentiated, and dynamic construction model, to avoid the appearance of “thousands of villages with the same features,” and to provide guidance for their future development and construction. Different types of housing, materials, and building techniques may be appropriate for different communities, depending on criteria such as cost, utility, and esthetics. This technique would allow for the construction of housing options tailored to the individual demands of each Desakota community. These factors collectively contribute to creating an environment that is not only economically viable but also environmentally responsible (Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz, 2013 ).

Furthermore, the study analyzed the relationships between primary and secondary factors in the construction industry, identifying three categories of crucial factors: architectural and mechanical engineering, construction project management, and financial evaluation. Tier 1 focuses on optimizing building interiors for occupant comfort, while Tier 2 includes effective project management, material availability, and timely delivery. Tier 3 evaluates a project’s finances, aiming for economic benefits and high-quality initiatives. The study used quantitative and qualitative methods to identify influential factors, with architectural and mechanical factors being the primary determinants. Respondents emphasized the importance of effective project management and economic benefits, emphasizing adaptability and maintainability. Cross-industry cooperation and favorable conditions for retrofitting and maintenance were also highlighted for increased economic benefits.

Recommendations

Building upon the conclusions drawn from this study, several recommendations can be made for future research and practical applications:

Multi-disciplinary collaboration: Encourage collaboration between architects, engineers, environmental experts, and urban planners to create housing designs that integrate seamlessly with the natural environment while ensuring functional efficiency.

Policy formulation: Policymakers should leverage the insights from this study to formulate guidelines and regulations that prioritize sustainable construction practices in Desakota region. These policies can incentivize the use of resource-friendly materials, energy-efficient designs, and environmentally conscious building techniques.

Supply chain optimization: Developers and construction managers should focus on streamlining the supply chain process, ensuring timely and cost-effective procurement of materials. Rational materials supply chains and tendering processes can reduce delays and enhance project efficiency.

Project management and maintenance: Emphasize the importance of adaptability and maintainability of projects. This includes planning for future retrofitting and maintenance and ensuring the longevity and sustainability of constructed housing.

Financial evaluation: Project stakeholders should prioritize economic benefits alongside environmental and social considerations. Financial evaluation strategies must encompass factors that contribute to long-term economic viability and profit generation.

Cross-industry cooperation: Encourage collaboration between different industries and sectors involved in housing construction. This includes fostering cooperation between upstream and downstream stakeholders to ensure efficient resource utilization and project success.

Education and awareness: Raise awareness among construction professionals and communities about the significance of the identified factors. Continuous education and training can empower stakeholders to implement best practices that align with the research findings.

International comparisons: Extend this research to compare the influencing factors in Desakota communities with those in similar semi-urban environments in other countries. This cross-cultural analysis can contribute to a global understanding of housing construction technology.

This study contributes to a comprehensive understanding of housing construction technology in Desakota village and town communities in China. As Desakota regions continue to evolve, the findings and recommendations of this study provide a robust foundation for creating sustainable, comfortable, and efficient living spaces that align with both local needs and global trends.

Research limitations and implications

The findings of this study could have a significant impact on housing construction in China’s Desakota villages and towns. However, this study focuses only on two influencing factors. It is one of the limitations of this study. Therefore, It is necessary to divide the population into rural and urban communities to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the influencing parameters that may have an effect on them. Additionally, only 120 samples were taken into account in this study. In order to acquire a comprehensive result, the sample size should be increased. The data collection procedure, i.e., the RII approach, is also regarded as a limitation of the present study. Some other data-collected approaches, such as random and stratified sampling, should be implemented. In the future, comprehensive qualitative studies should be conducted, and opinions from individuals representing all segments of the construction industry should be sought. In contrast, outside of China, semi-urbanization is now a global phenomenon. Even though the aim of this study is to make it simpler to construct housing in the Chinese construction environment, the opinions of other experts (who participated in the study) should be considered in order to make construction industries in similar environments more efficient. This study’s findings provide practical implications for policymakers and urban planners as China experiences a shift towards semi-urban development, the identified factors can guide the formulation of policies that promote sustainable construction practices and prioritize the well-being of residents (Wei, 2007 ). Integrating architectural and engineering considerations with environmental analysis can foster the creation of homes that harmonize with their natural surroundings, enhancing the overall living experience (Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011 ). For industry professionals, these findings offer a roadmap for effective project management, supply chain optimization, and financial evaluation. By acknowledging the significance of each factor in the construction process, stakeholders can allocate resources more efficiently, mitigate risks, and ensure that housing projects are completed on time and within budget. Finally, the existence of diverse top-tier technologies suggests the availability of a variety of technical solutions for addressing the issues associated with sustainable and affordable housing initiatives in different local contexts (Zou et al., 2007 ). Specifically, the construction industries in China and other Asian countries such as Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Japan are almost identically impacted by external factors. Therefore, additional studies concentrating on unifying the housing construction influencing factors in these countries with China and evaluating qualitative approaches will be helpful to better reflect the global impact of housing construction technology.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abas M, Khattak S, Hussain I, Maqsood S, Ahmad I (2015) Evaluation of factors affecting the quality of construction projects. Tech J Univ Eng Technol Taxila Pak 20(2):115–120

Google Scholar  

Ajayi O (2017) Factors affecting housing delivery in Lagos State, Nigeria

Alhajri MF (2022) Housing challenges and programs to enhance access to affordable housing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ain Shams Eng J 13(6):101798

Article   Google Scholar  

Anabestani A(2014) Analysis of social change effects on the pattern of rural housing (case study: Binalood County) J Res Rural Plan 3(1):57–68

Assaf SA, Bubshaitr AA, Al‐Muwasheer F (2010) Factors affecting affordable housing cost in Saudi Arabia. Int J Hous Mark Anal 3(4):290–307

Ato Kwamena Senayah E (2016) Housing affordability in Kumasi: “Towards improving housing delivery in the city”. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology

Bordignon BV (1998) A systems design approach for sustainable affordable housing. Thesis, University of Toronto

Bossuyt D, Salet W, Majoor S (2018) Commissioning as the cornerstone of self-build. Assessing the constraints and opportunities of self-build housing in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy 77:524–533

Chan APC, Darko A, Olanipekun AO, Ameyaw EE (2018) Critical barriers to green building technologies adoption in developing countries: the case of Ghana. J Clean Prod 172:1067–1079

Chatzigagios T, Panagopoulos AG (2015) Hedge funds and credit derivatives regulatory reforms and suggestions—how the International Financial Environment will be affected. J Econ Bus Manag 3(12):1146–1151

Chen QY (2004) Using computational tools to factor wind into architectural environment design. Energy Build 36(12):1197–1209

Chen K, Long H, Liao L, Tu S, Li TJLUP (2020) Land use transitions and urban–rural integrated development: theoretical framework and China’s evidence. Land Use Policy 92:104465

Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3):297–334

Douglas J (2006) Building adaptation. Routledge

Dziadosz A, Rejment M (2015) Risk analysis in construction project-chosen methods. Procedia Eng 122:258–265

Famiyeh S, Amoatey CT, Adaku E, Agbenohevi CS (2017) Major causes of construction time and cost overruns: a case of selected educational sector projects in Ghana. J Eng Des Technol 15(2):181–198

Firman TJHI (2009) The continuity and change in mega-urbanization in Indonesia: a survey of Jakarta–Bandung Region (JBR) development. Habitat Int 33(4):327–339

Gan X, Liu L, Wen T, Webber R (2022) Modelling interrelationships between barriers to adopting green building technologies in China’s rural housing via grey-DEMATEL. Technol Soc 70:102042

Gan X, Zuo J, Ye K, Skitmore M, Xiong B (2015) Why sustainable construction? Why not? An owner’s perspective. Habitat Int 47:61–68

Gliem JA, Gliem RR (2003) Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In Midwest research-to-practice conference in adult, continuing, and community education (Vol. 1, pp. 82–87)

Guo Q, He Z, Li D, Spyra M (2022) Analysis of spatial patterns and socioeconomic activities of urbanized rural areas in Fujian Province, China. Land 11(7):969

Hayes AF, Krippendorff K (2007) Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Commun Methods Meas 1(1):77–89

Huang B, Lei J, Ren F, Chen Y, Zhao Q, Li S, Lin YJJOCP (2021) Contribution and obstacle analysis of applying BIM in promoting green buildings. J Clean Prod 278, 123946

International Energy Agency (IEA) (2020) World energy statistics and balances https://www.iea.org/topics/energyefficiency/buildings/ . Accessed 10 May 2020. https://www.iea.org/topics/energyefficiency/buildings/

Iranmanesh M, Imantalab H (2014) Designing rural housing pattern. J Appl Sci Res 10(10):44–51

Jain-Chandra S, Khor N, Mano R, Schauer J, Wingender M, Zhuang JJD, Remedies P (2018) Inequality in China–trends. IMF Working Paper 18(127):1

Li F, Zhang J, Li X (2022) Research on supporting developing countries to achieve green development transition: based on the perspective of renewable energy and foreign direct investment. J Clean Prod 372:133726

Li J, Colombier M (2009) Managing carbon emissions in China through building energy efficiency. J Environ Manag 90(8):2436–2447

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Li L, Zhao K, Wang X, Zhao S, Liu X, Li W (2022) Spatio-temporal evolution and driving mechanism of urbanization in small cities: case study from Guangxi. Land 11(3):415

Li Q, Chand SJHI (2013) House prices and market fundamentals in urban China. Habitat Int 40:148–153

Li Q, Long R, Chen H (2018) Differences and influencing factors for Chinese urban resident willingness to pay for green housings: evidence from five first-tier cities in China. Appl Energy 229:299–313

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Lin G, Xie X, Lv Z (2016) Taobao practices, everyday life and emerging hybrid rurality in contemporary China. J rural Stud 47:514–523

Liu G, Li X, Tan Y, Zhang G (2020) Building green retrofit in China: policies, barriers and recommendations. Energy Policy 139:111356

Nellis JG, Longbottom JA (1981a) An empirical analysis of the determination of house prices in the United Kingdom. Urban Stud 18(1):9–21

Nellis JG, Longbottom JAJUS (1981b) An empirical analysis of the determination of house prices in the United Kingdom. Urban Stud 18(1):9–21

Nwodo MN, Anumba CJJB, & Environment (2019) A review of life cycle assessment of buildings using a systematic approach. Build Environ 162:106290

Nyamushamba G (2016) Gerald Munyoro. School of Business Science and Management, Chinhoyi University of Technology

Ofek S, Portnov BA (2020) Differential effect of knowledge on stakeholders’ willingness to pay green building price premium: implications for cleaner production. J Clean Prod 251:119575

Olusola OO, Akunnaya Pearl O, Abiodun Olukayode O, Adedapo Adewunmi O(2019) Factors influencing housing development patterns in International Border Towns in Ogunstate, Nigeria Int J Mech Eng Technol 10(3):26–40

Omofonmwan S, Kadiri M (2007) Evolution and spread of settlements in the Esan area of Edo state. J Hum Ecol 22(3):227–233

Owusu S, Asamoah K (2005) Servicing land for housing development in peri-urban areas of Kumasi, Ghana: theory versus practice. J Sci Technol 25(1):77–85

Robichaud LB, Anantatmula VS (2011) Greening project management practices for sustainable construction. J Manag Eng 27(1):48–57

Shao Z (2015) The new urban area development: a case study in China. Springer

Sinha I (1978) A solution to the problem of low-income group housing in developing countries by use of prefabricated system. Housing problems in developing countries. Paper presented at the Proceedings of IAHS International Conference

Stegman MA (1969) Accessibility models and residential location. J Am Inst Plan 35(1):22–29

Sun Y, Li Y, Zhang F, Liu C (2022) Obstacle identification and analysis to the commercialization of CCUS Technology in China under the carbon neutrality target. Energies 15(11):3964

Taemthong W, Chaisaard N (2019) An analysis of green building costs using a minimum cost concept. J Green Build 14(1):53–78

Tavakol M, Dennick R (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 2:53

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Trimbath S, Montoya J (2002) Housing affordability in three dimensions: price, income and interest rates. Milken Institute Policy Brief (31)

Valdes-Vasquez R, Klotz LE (2013) Social sustainability considerations during planning and design: framework of processes for construction projects. J Constr Eng Manag 139(1):80–89

Wang Y, Jiang Y (2016) An empirical analysis of factors affecting the housing price in Shanghai. Asian J Econ Model 4(2):104–111

Article   MathSciNet   CAS   Google Scholar  

Wei YD (2007) Regional development in China: transitional institutions, embedded globalization, and hybrid economies. Eurasia Geogr Econ 48(1):16–36

Xu Z, Chau SN, Chen X, Zhang J, Li Y, Dietz T, … Huang BJN (2020) Assessing progress towards sustainable development over space and time. Nature 577(7788):74–78

Yang C, Qian Z (2022) Urbanization through resettlement and the production of space in Hangzhou’s concentrated resettlement communities. Cities 129:103846

Yearbook CS (2012) National Bureau of statistics of China. China Statistical Yearbook

Yin S, Zhang N, Li BJSP, & Consumption (2020) Enhancing the competitiveness of multi-agent cooperation for green manufacturing in China: an empirical study of the measure of green technology innovation capabilities and their influencing factors. Sustain Prod Consum 23:63–76

Zakaria YA, Kuusaana ED (2020) Housing affordability: factors influencing housing in the Tamale Metropolis of Ghana. Int J Reg Dev 7:1

Zallio M, Berry D (2017) Design and planned obsolescence. theories and approaches for designing enabling technologies. Des J 20(suppl 1):S3749–S3761

Zhong S, Wang M, Zhu Y, Chen Z, Huang XJC (2022) Urban expansion and the urban–rural income gap: empirical evidence from China. Cities 129:103831

Zhu X, Zhong Y, Li Z, Shi H, Shi B (2022) Study on low-carbon construction system of desakota village-and-town communities: take Zhejiang Province as an example. Sustainability 14(18):11525

Zou PX, Zhang G, Wang J (2007) Understanding the key risks in construction projects in China. Int J Proj Manag 25(6):601–614

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was supported and funded by the Zhejiang Province Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project “A study on climate-resilient design decisions for low-rise residential buildings in northern Zhejiang cities from a multi-agent perspective”, grant number 23NDJC105YB; the National Natural Science Youth Foundation of China, “Control elements and technical strategy of old town renewal under the coupling of ‘Urban Renewal and Ecological Restoration-carbon peaking and carbon neutrality'” (Grant No. 52308039); The Fundamental Research Funds for the Provincial Universities of Zhejiang “Research on innovative design of urban and rural environment under the integration of arts and sciences” (GB202301005).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Design and Architecture, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China

Zhixing Li, Xin He & Zhuojun Ding

Department of Building Engineering and Construction Management, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology, Khulna, 9203, Bangladesh

Md. Mehrab Hossain, Md. Tanvir Rahman Rifat & Md. Habibur Rahman Sobuz

Blue Building Research Center, Solearth Architecture (BITI Lab), Hong Kong, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, ZL; Methodology, HRS and ZL; Software, XH, ZD, and ZL; Investigation, MMM, and TRR; Data curation, XH, ZD, and ZL; Writing—original draft, ZL; Writing—review & editing, ZL, HRS, and YZ; Supervision, YZ; Project administration, HRS and YZ; Funding acquisition, ZL. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yafei Zhao .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the university. Ethical clearance and approval were granted by Zhejiang University of Technology.

Informed consent

All participants have given written informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Li, Z., He, X., Ding, Z. et al. Analysis of influencing factors for housing construction technology in Desakota Village and town communities in China. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 432 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02937-2

Download citation

Received : 26 December 2022

Accepted : 05 March 2024

Published : 19 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02937-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies