quantitative research literature review

Archer Library

Quantitative research: literature review .

• Archer Library This link opens in a new window
• Research Resources handout This link opens in a new window
• Locating Books
• Library eBook Collections This link opens in a new window
• A to Z Database List This link opens in a new window
• Research & Statistics
• Literature Review Resources
• Citations & Reference

Exploring the literature review 

Literature review model: 6 steps.

Adapted from The Literature Review , Machi & McEvoy (2009, p. 13).

Your Literature Review

Step 2: search, boolean search strategies, search limiters, ★ ebsco & google drive.

1. Select a Topic

"All research begins with curiosity" (Machi & McEvoy, 2009, p. 14)

Selection of a topic, and fully defined research interest and question, is supervised (and approved) by your professor. Tips for crafting your topic include:

• Be specific. Take time to define your interest.
• Topic Focus. Fully describe and sufficiently narrow the focus for research.
• Academic Discipline. Learn more about your area of research & refine the scope.
• Avoid Bias. Be aware of bias that you (as a researcher) may have.
• Document your research. Use Google Docs to track your research process.
• Research apps. Consider using Evernote or Zotero to track your research.

Consider Purpose

What will your topic and research address?

In The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students , Ridley presents that literature reviews serve several purposes (2008, p. 16-17).  Included are the following points:

• Historical background for the research;
• Overview of current field provided by "contemporary debates, issues, and questions;"
• Theories and concepts related to your research;
• Introduce "relevant terminology" - or academic language - being used it the field;
• Connect to existing research - does your work "extend or challenge [this] or address a gap;" 
• Provide "supporting evidence for a practical problem or issue" that your research addresses.

★ Schedule a research appointment

At this point in your literature review, take time to meet with a librarian. Why? Understanding the subject terminology used in databases can be challenging. Archer Librarians can help you structure a search, preparing you for step two. How? Contact a librarian directly or use the online form to schedule an appointment. Details are provided in the adjacent Schedule an Appointment box.

2. Search the Literature

Collect & Select Data: Preview, select, and organize

Archer Library is your go-to resource for this step in your literature review process. The literature search will include books and ebooks, scholarly and practitioner journals, theses and dissertations, and indexes. You may also choose to include web sites, blogs, open access resources, and newspapers. This library guide provides access to resources needed to complete a literature review.

Books & eBooks: Archer Library & OhioLINK

Databases: Scholarly & Practitioner Journals

Review the Library Databases tab on this library guide, it provides links to recommended databases for Education & Psychology, Business, and General & Social Sciences.

Expand your journal search; a complete listing of available AU Library and OhioLINK databases is available on the Databases  A to Z list . Search the database by subject, type, name, or do use the search box for a general title search. The A to Z list also includes open access resources and select internet sites.

Databases: Theses & Dissertations

Review the Library Databases tab on this guide, it includes Theses & Dissertation resources. AU library also has AU student authored theses and dissertations available in print, search the library catalog for these titles.

Did you know? If you are looking for particular chapters within a dissertation that is not fully available online, it is possible to submit an ILL article request . Do this instead of requesting the entire dissertation.

Newspapers:  Databases & Internet

Consider current literature in your academic field. AU Library's database collection includes The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Wall Street Journal .  The Internet Resources tab in this guide provides links to newspapers and online journals such as Inside Higher Ed , COABE Journal , and Education Week .

The Chronicle of Higher Education has the nation’s largest newsroom dedicated to covering colleges and universities.  Source of news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators

The Chronicle features complete contents of the latest print issue; daily news and advice columns; current job listings; archive of previously published content; discussion forums; and career-building tools such as online CV management and salary databases. Dates covered: 1970-present.

Offers in-depth coverage of national and international business and finance as well as first-rate coverage of hard news--all from America's premier financial newspaper. Covers complete bibliographic information and also subjects, companies, people, products, and geographic areas. 

Comprehensive coverage back to 1984 is available from the world's leading financial newspaper through the ProQuest database. 

Newspaper Source provides cover-to-cover full text for hundreds of national (U.S.), international and regional newspapers. In addition, it offers television and radio news transcripts from major networks.

Provides complete television and radio news transcripts from CBS News, CNN, CNN International, FOX News, and more.

Search Strategies & Boolean Operators

There are three basic boolean operators:  AND, OR, and NOT.

Used with your search terms, boolean operators will either expand or limit results. What purpose do they serve? They help to define the relationship between your search terms. For example, using the operator AND will combine the terms expanding the search. When searching some databases, and Google, the operator AND may be implied.

Overview of boolean terms

About the example: Boolean searches were conducted on November 4, 2019; result numbers may vary at a later date. No additional database limiters were set to further narrow search returns.

Database Search Limiters

Database strategies for targeted search results.

Most databases include limiters, or additional parameters, you may use to strategically focus search results.  EBSCO databases, such as Education Research Complete & Academic Search Complete provide options to:

• Limit results to full text;
• Limit results to scholarly journals, and reference available;
• Select results source type to journals, magazines, conference papers, reviews, and newspapers
• Publication date

Keep in mind that these tools are defined as limiters for a reason; adding them to a search will limit the number of results returned.  This can be a double-edged sword.  How? 

• If limiting results to full-text only, you may miss an important piece of research that could change the direction of your research. Interlibrary loan is available to students, free of charge. Request articles that are not available in full-text; they will be sent to you via email.
• If narrowing publication date, you may eliminate significant historical - or recent - research conducted on your topic.
• Limiting resource type to a specific type of material may cause bias in the research results.

Use limiters with care. When starting a search, consider opting out of limiters until the initial literature screening is complete. The second or third time through your research may be the ideal time to focus on specific time periods or material (scholarly vs newspaper).

★ Truncating Search Terms

Expanding your search term at the root.

Truncating is often referred to as 'wildcard' searching. Databases may have their own specific wildcard elements however, the most commonly used are the asterisk (*) or question mark (?).  When used within your search. they will expand returned results.

Asterisk (*) Wildcard

Using the asterisk wildcard will return varied spellings of the truncated word. In the following example, the search term education was truncated after the letter "t."

Explore these database help pages for additional information on crafting search terms.

• EBSCO Connect: Basic Searching with EBSCO
• EBSCO Connect: Searching with Boolean Operators
• EBSCO Connect: Searching with Wildcards and Truncation Symbols
• ProQuest Help: Search Tips
• ERIC: How does ERIC search work?

★ EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

Tips for saving research directly to Google drive.

Researching in an EBSCO database?

It is possible to save articles (PDF and HTML) and abstracts in EBSCOhost databases directly to Google drive. Select the Google Drive icon, authenticate using a Google account, and an EBSCO folder will be created in your account. This is a great option for managing your research. If documenting your research in a Google Doc, consider linking the information to actual articles saved in drive.

EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

EBSCOHost Databases & Google Drive: Managing your Research

This video features an overview of how to use Google Drive with EBSCO databases to help manage your research. It presents information for connecting an active Google account to EBSCO and steps needed to provide permission for EBSCO to manage a folder in Drive.

About the Video:  Closed captioning is available, select CC from the video menu.  If you need to review a specific area on the video, view on YouTube and expand the video description for access to topic time stamps.  A video transcript is provided below.

• EBSCOhost Databases & Google Scholar

Defining Literature Review

What is a literature review.

A definition from the Online Dictionary for Library and Information Sciences .

A literature review is "a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works" (Reitz, 2014). 

A systemic review is "a literature review focused on a specific research question, which uses explicit methods to minimize bias in the identification, appraisal, selection, and synthesis of all the high-quality evidence pertinent to the question" (Reitz, 2014).

Recommended Reading

About this page

EBSCO Connect [Discovery and Search]. (2022). Searching with boolean operators. Retrieved May, 3, 2022 from https://connect.ebsco.com/s/?language=en_US

EBSCO Connect [Discover and Search]. (2022). Searching with wildcards and truncation symbols. Retrieved May 3, 2022; https://connect.ebsco.com/s/?language=en_US

Machi, L.A. & McEvoy, B.T. (2009). The literature review . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press: 

Reitz, J.M. (2014). Online dictionary for library and information science. ABC-CLIO, Libraries Unlimited . Retrieved from https://www.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_A.aspx

Ridley, D. (2008). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Archer Librarians

Schedule an appointment.

Contact a librarian directly (email), or submit a request form. If you have worked with someone before, you can request them on the form.

• ★ Archer Library Help • Online Reqest Form
• Carrie Halquist • Reference & Instruction
• Jessica Byers • Reference & Curation
• Don Reams • Corrections Education & Reference
• Diane Schrecker • Education & Head of the IRC
• Tanaya Silcox • Technical Services & Business
• Sarah Thomas • Acquisitions & ATS Librarian
• << Previous: Research & Statistics
• Next: Literature Review Resources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 29, 2024 11:19 AM
• URL: https://libguides.ashland.edu/quantitative

Archer Library • Ashland University © Copyright 2023. An Equal Opportunity/Equal Access Institution.

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.

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.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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 September 3, 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”

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

Literature Review

What exactly is a literature review.

• Critical Exploration and Synthesis: It involves a thorough and critical examination of existing research, going beyond simple summaries to synthesize information.
• Reorganizing Key Information: Involves structuring and categorizing the main ideas and findings from various sources.
• Offering Fresh Interpretations: Provides new perspectives or insights into the research topic.
• Merging New and Established Insights: Integrates both recent findings and well-established knowledge in the field.
• Analyzing Intellectual Trajectories: Examines the evolution and debates within a specific field over time.
• Contextualizing Current Research: Places recent research within the broader academic landscape, showing its relevance and relation to existing knowledge.
• Detailed Overview of Sources: Gives a comprehensive summary of relevant books, articles, and other scholarly materials.
• Highlighting Significance: Emphasizes the importance of various research works to the specific topic of study.

How do Literature Reviews Differ from Academic Research Papers?

• Focus on Existing Arguments: Literature reviews summarize and synthesize existing research, unlike research papers that present new arguments.
• Secondary vs. Primary Research: Literature reviews are based on secondary sources, while research papers often include primary research.
• Foundational Element vs. Main Content: In research papers, literature reviews are usually a part of the background, not the main focus.
• Lack of Original Contributions: Literature reviews do not introduce new theories or findings, which is a key component of research papers.

Purpose of Literature Reviews

• Drawing from Diverse Fields: Literature reviews incorporate findings from various fields like health, education, psychology, business, and more.
• Prioritizing High-Quality Studies: They emphasize original, high-quality research for accuracy and objectivity.
• Serving as Comprehensive Guides: Offer quick, in-depth insights for understanding a subject thoroughly.
• Foundational Steps in Research: Act as a crucial first step in conducting new research by summarizing existing knowledge.
• Providing Current Knowledge for Professionals: Keep professionals updated with the latest findings in their fields.
• Demonstrating Academic Expertise: In academia, they showcase the writer’s deep understanding and contribute to the background of research papers.
• Essential for Scholarly Research: A deep understanding of literature is vital for conducting and contextualizing scholarly research.

A Literature Review is Not About:

• Merely Summarizing Sources: It’s not just a compilation of summaries of various research works.
• Ignoring Contradictions: It does not overlook conflicting evidence or viewpoints in the literature.
• Being Unstructured: It’s not a random collection of information without a clear organizing principle.
• Avoiding Critical Analysis: It doesn’t merely present information without critically evaluating its relevance and credibility.
• Focusing Solely on Older Research: It’s not limited to outdated or historical literature, ignoring recent developments.
• Isolating Research: It doesn’t treat each source in isolation but integrates them into a cohesive narrative.

Steps Involved in Conducting a Research Literature Review (Fink, 2019)

1. choose a clear research question., 2. use online databases and other resources to find articles and books relevant to your question..

• Google Scholar
• OSU Library
• ERIC. Index to journal articles on educational research and practice.
• PsycINFO . Citations and abstracts for articles in 1,300 professional journals, conference proceedings, books, reports, and dissertations in psychology and related disciplines.
• PubMed . This search system provides access to the PubMed database of bibliographic information, which is drawn primarily from MEDLINE, which indexes articles from about 3,900 journals in the life sciences (e.g., health, medicine, biology).
• Social Sciences Citation Index . A multidisciplinary database covering the journal literature of the social sciences, indexing more than 1,725 journals across 50 social sciences disciplines.

3. Decide on Search Terms.

• Pick words and phrases based on your research question to find suitable materials
• You can start by finding models for your literature review, and search for existing reviews in your field, using “review” and your keywords. This helps identify themes and organizational methods.
• Narrowing your topic is crucial due to the vast amount of literature available. Focusing on a specific aspect makes it easier to manage the number of sources you need to review, as it’s unlikely you’ll need to cover everything in the field.
• Use AND to retrieve a set of citations in which each citation contains all search terms.
• Use OR to retrieve citations that contain one of the specified terms.
• Use NOT to exclude terms from your search.
• Be careful when using NOT because you may inadvertently eliminate important articles. In Example 3, articles about preschoolers and academic achievement are eliminated, but so are studies that include preschoolers as part of a discussion of academic achievement and all age groups.

4. Filter out articles that don’t meet criteria like language, type, publication date, and funding source.

• Publication language Example. Include only studies in English.
• Journal Example. Include all education journals. Exclude all medical journals.
• Author Example. Include all articles by Andrew Hayes.
• Setting Example. Include all studies that take place in family settings. Exclude all studies that take place in the school setting.
• Participants or subjects Example. Include children that are younger than 6 years old.
• Program/intervention Example. Include all programs that are teacher-led. Exclude all programs that are learner-initiated.
• Research design Example. Include only longitudinal studies. Exclude cross-sectional studies.
• Sampling Example. Include only studies that rely on randomly selected participants.
• Date of publication Example. Include only studies published from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2023.
• Date of data collection Example. Include only studies that collected data from 2010 through 2023. Exclude studies that do not give dates of data collection.
• Duration of data collection Example. Include only studies that collect data for 12 months or longer.

5. Evaluate the methodological quality of the articles, including research design, sampling, data collection, interventions, data analysis, results, and conclusions.

• Maturation: Changes in individuals due to natural development may impact study results, such as intellectual or emotional growth in long-term studies.
• Selection: The method of choosing and assigning participants to groups can introduce bias; random selection minimizes this.
• History: External historical events occurring simultaneously with the study can bias results, making it hard to isolate the study’s effects.
• Instrumentation: Reliable data collection tools are essential to ensure accurate findings, especially in pretest-posttest designs.
• Statistical Regression: Selection based on extreme initial measures can lead to misleading results due to regression towards the mean.
• Attrition: Loss of participants during a study can bias results if those remaining differ significantly from those who dropped out.
• Reactive Effects of Testing: Pre-intervention measures can sensitize participants to the study’s aims, affecting outcomes.
• Interactive Effects of Selection: Unique combinations of intervention programs and participants can limit the generalizability of findings.
• Reactive Effects of Innovation: Artificial experimental environments can lead to uncharacteristic behavior among participants.
• Multiple-Program Interference: Difficulty in isolating an intervention’s effects due to participants’ involvement in other activities or programs.
• Simple Random Sampling : Every individual has an equal chance of being selected, making this method relatively unbiased.
• Systematic Sampling : Selection is made at regular intervals from a list, such as every sixth name from a list of 3,000 to obtain a sample of 500.
• Stratified Sampling : The population is divided into subgroups, and random samples are then taken from each subgroup.
• Cluster Sampling : Natural groups (like schools or cities) are used as batches for random selection, both at the group and individual levels.
• Convenience Samples : Selection probability is unknown; these samples are easy to obtain but may not be representative unless statistically validated.
• Study Power: The ability of a study to detect an effect, if present, is known as its power. Power analysis helps identify a sample size large enough to detect this effect.
• Test-Retest Reliability: High correlation between scores obtained at different times, indicating consistency over time.
• Equivalence/Alternate-Form Reliability: The degree to which two different assessments measure the same concept at the same difficulty level.
• Homogeneity: The extent to which all items or questions in a measure assess the same skill, characteristic, or quality.
• Interrater Reliability: Degree of agreement among different individuals assessing the same item or concept.
• Content Validity: Measures how thoroughly and appropriately a tool assesses the skills or characteristics it’s supposed to measure. Face Validity: Assesses whether a measure appears effective at first glance in terms of language use and comprehensiveness. Criterion Validity: Includes predictive validity (forecasting future performance) and concurrent validity (agreement with already valid measures). Construct Validity: Experimentally established to show that a measure effectively differentiates between people with and without certain characteristics.
• Relies on factors like the scale (categorical, ordinal, numerical) of independent and dependent variables, the count of these variables, and whether the data’s quality and characteristics align with the chosen statistical method’s assumptions.

6. Use a standard form for data extraction, train reviewers if needed, and ensure quality.

7. interpret the results, using your experience and the literature’s quality and content. for a more detailed analysis, a meta-analysis can be conducted using statistical methods to combine study results., 8. produce a descriptive review or perform a meta-analysis..

• Example: Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in higher education, 32(6), 693-710.
• Clarify the objectives of the analysis.
• Set explicit criteria for including and excluding studies.
• Describe in detail the methods used to search the literature.
• Search the literature using a standardized protocol for including and excluding studies.
• Use a standardized protocol to collect (“abstract”) data from each study regarding study purposes, methods, and effects (outcomes).
• Describe in detail the statistical method for pooling results.
• Report results, conclusions, and limitations.

• Example: Yu, Z. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effect of virtual reality technology use in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (8), 4956-4976.
• Essential and Multifunctional Bibliographic Software: Tools like EndNote, ProCite, BibTex, Bookeeper, Zotero, and Mendeley offer more than just digital storage for references; they enable saving and sharing search strategies, directly inserting references into reports and scholarly articles, and analyzing references by thematic content.
• Comprehensive Literature Reviews: Involve supplementing electronic searches with a review of references in identified literature, manual searches of references and journals, and consulting experts for both unpublished and published studies and reports.
• One of the most famous reporting checklists is the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials ( CONSORT ). CONSORT consists of a checklist and flow diagram. The checklist includes items that need to be addressed in the report.

References:

Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review.  Studies in higher education ,  32 (6), 693-710.

Fink, A. (2019).  Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper . Sage publications.

Yu, Z. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effect of virtual reality technology use in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (8), 4956-4976.

University Libraries

• Research Guides
• Blackboard Learn
• Interlibrary Loan
• Study Rooms
• University of Arkansas

Literature Reviews

• Qualitative or Quantitative?
• Getting Started
• Finding articles
• Primary sources? Peer-reviewed?
• Review Articles/ Annual Reviews...?
• Books, ebooks, dissertations

Qualitative researchers TEND to:

Researchers using qualitative methods tend to:

• t hink that social sciences cannot be well-studied with the same methods as natural or physical sciences
• feel that human behavior is context-specific; therefore, behavior must be studied holistically, in situ, rather than being manipulated
• employ an 'insider's' perspective; research tends to be personal and thereby more subjective.
• do interviews, focus groups, field research, case studies, and conversational or content analysis.

Image from https://www.editage.com/insights/qualitative-quantitative-or-mixed-methods-a-quick-guide-to-choose-the-right-design-for-your-research?refer-type=infographics

Qualitative Research (an operational definition)

Qualitative Research: an operational description

Purpose : explain; gain insight and understanding of phenomena through intensive collection and study of narrative data

Approach: inductive; value-laden/subjective; holistic, process-oriented

Hypotheses: tentative, evolving; based on the particular study

Lit. Review: limited; may not be exhaustive

Setting: naturalistic, when and as much as possible

Sampling : for the purpose; not necessarily representative; for in-depth understanding

Measurement: narrative; ongoing

Design and Method: flexible, specified only generally; based on non-intervention, minimal disturbance, such as historical, ethnographic, or case studies

Data Collection: document collection, participant observation, informal interviews, field notes

Data Analysis: raw data is words/ ongoing; involves synthesis

Data Interpretation: tentative, reviewed on ongoing basis, speculative

Quantitative researchers TEND to:

Researchers using quantitative methods tend to:

• think that both natural and social sciences strive to explain phenomena with confirmable theories derived from testable assumptions
• attempt to reduce social reality to variables, in the same way as with physical reality
• try to tightly control the variable(s) in question to see how the others are influenced.
• Do experiments, have control groups, use blind or double-blind studies; use measures or instruments.

Quantitative Research (an operational definition)

Quantitative research: an operational description

Purpose: explain, predict or control phenomena through focused collection and analysis of numberical data

Approach: deductive; tries to be value-free/has objectives/ is outcome-oriented

Hypotheses : Specific, testable, and stated prior to study

Lit. Review: extensive; may significantly influence a particular study

Setting: controlled to the degree possible

Sampling: uses largest manageable random/randomized sample, to allow generalization of results to larger populations

Measurement: standardized, numberical; "at the end"

Design and Method: Strongly structured, specified in detail in advance; involves intervention, manipulation and control groups; descriptive, correlational, experimental

Data Collection: via instruments, surveys, experiments, semi-structured formal interviews, tests or questionnaires

Data Analysis: raw data is numbers; at end of study, usually statistical

Data Interpretation: formulated at end of study; stated as a degree of certainty

This page on qualitative and quantitative research has been adapted and expanded from a handout by Suzy Westenkirchner. Used with permission.

Images from https://www.editage.com/insights/qualitative-quantitative-or-mixed-methods-a-quick-guide-to-choose-the-right-design-for-your-research?refer-type=infographics.

• << Previous: Books, ebooks, dissertations
• Last Updated: Sep 5, 2024 4:04 PM
• URL: https://uark.libguides.com/litreview
• See us on Instagram
• Follow us on Twitter
• Phone: 479-575-4104

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

• Planning Your Systematic Review
• Database Searching
• Creating the Search
• Search Filters and Hedges
• Grey Literature
• Managing and Appraising Results
• Further Resources

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 23, 2024 3:40 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 21, Issue 4
• How to appraise quantitative research
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

This article has a correction. Please see:

• Correction: How to appraise quantitative research - April 01, 2019

• Xabi Cathala 1 ,
• Calvin Moorley 2
• 1 Institute of Vocational Learning , School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University , London , UK
• 2 Nursing Research and Diversity in Care , School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University , London , UK
• Correspondence to Mr Xabi Cathala, Institute of Vocational Learning, School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University London UK ; cathalax{at}lsbu.ac.uk and Dr Calvin Moorley, Nursing Research and Diversity in Care, School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London SE1 0AA, UK; Moorleyc{at}lsbu.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102996

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.

Introduction

Some nurses feel that they lack the necessary skills to read a research paper and to then decide if they should implement the findings into their practice. This is particularly the case when considering the results of quantitative research, which often contains the results of statistical testing. However, nurses have a professional responsibility to critique research to improve their practice, care and patient safety. 1  This article provides a step by step guide on how to critically appraise a quantitative paper.

Title, keywords and the authors

The authors’ names may not mean much, but knowing the following will be helpful:

Their position, for example, academic, researcher or healthcare practitioner.

Their qualification, both professional, for example, a nurse or physiotherapist and academic (eg, degree, masters, doctorate).

This can indicate how the research has been conducted and the authors’ competence on the subject. Basically, do you want to read a paper on quantum physics written by a plumber?

The abstract is a resume of the article and should contain:

Introduction.

Research question/hypothesis.

Methods including sample design, tests used and the statistical analysis (of course! Remember we love numbers).

Main findings.

Conclusion.

The subheadings in the abstract will vary depending on the journal. An abstract should not usually be more than 300 words but this varies depending on specific journal requirements. If the above information is contained in the abstract, it can give you an idea about whether the study is relevant to your area of practice. However, before deciding if the results of a research paper are relevant to your practice, it is important to review the overall quality of the article. This can only be done by reading and critically appraising the entire article.

The introduction

Example: the effect of paracetamol on levels of pain.

My hypothesis is that A has an effect on B, for example, paracetamol has an effect on levels of pain.

My null hypothesis is that A has no effect on B, for example, paracetamol has no effect on pain.

My study will test the null hypothesis and if the null hypothesis is validated then the hypothesis is false (A has no effect on B). This means paracetamol has no effect on the level of pain. If the null hypothesis is rejected then the hypothesis is true (A has an effect on B). This means that paracetamol has an effect on the level of pain.

Background/literature review

The literature review should include reference to recent and relevant research in the area. It should summarise what is already known about the topic and why the research study is needed and state what the study will contribute to new knowledge. 5 The literature review should be up to date, usually 5–8 years, but it will depend on the topic and sometimes it is acceptable to include older (seminal) studies.

Methodology

In quantitative studies, the data analysis varies between studies depending on the type of design used. For example, descriptive, correlative or experimental studies all vary. A descriptive study will describe the pattern of a topic related to one or more variable. 6 A correlational study examines the link (correlation) between two variables 7  and focuses on how a variable will react to a change of another variable. In experimental studies, the researchers manipulate variables looking at outcomes 8  and the sample is commonly assigned into different groups (known as randomisation) to determine the effect (causal) of a condition (independent variable) on a certain outcome. This is a common method used in clinical trials.

There should be sufficient detail provided in the methods section for you to replicate the study (should you want to). To enable you to do this, the following sections are normally included:

Overview and rationale for the methodology.

Participants or sample.

Data collection tools.

Methods of data analysis.

Ethical issues.

Data collection should be clearly explained and the article should discuss how this process was undertaken. Data collection should be systematic, objective, precise, repeatable, valid and reliable. Any tool (eg, a questionnaire) used for data collection should have been piloted (or pretested and/or adjusted) to ensure the quality, validity and reliability of the tool. 9 The participants (the sample) and any randomisation technique used should be identified. The sample size is central in quantitative research, as the findings should be able to be generalised for the wider population. 10 The data analysis can be done manually or more complex analyses performed using computer software sometimes with advice of a statistician. From this analysis, results like mode, mean, median, p value, CI and so on are always presented in a numerical format.

The author(s) should present the results clearly. These may be presented in graphs, charts or tables alongside some text. You should perform your own critique of the data analysis process; just because a paper has been published, it does not mean it is perfect. Your findings may be different from the author’s. Through critical analysis the reader may find an error in the study process that authors have not seen or highlighted. These errors can change the study result or change a study you thought was strong to weak. To help you critique a quantitative research paper, some guidance on understanding statistical terminology is provided in  table 1 .

• View inline

Some basic guidance for understanding statistics

Quantitative studies examine the relationship between variables, and the p value illustrates this objectively.  11  If the p value is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected and the hypothesis is accepted and the study will say there is a significant difference. If the p value is more than 0.05, the null hypothesis is accepted then the hypothesis is rejected. The study will say there is no significant difference. As a general rule, a p value of less than 0.05 means, the hypothesis is accepted and if it is more than 0.05 the hypothesis is rejected.

The CI is a number between 0 and 1 or is written as a per cent, demonstrating the level of confidence the reader can have in the result. 12  The CI is calculated by subtracting the p value to 1 (1–p). If there is a p value of 0.05, the CI will be 1–0.05=0.95=95%. A CI over 95% means, we can be confident the result is statistically significant. A CI below 95% means, the result is not statistically significant. The p values and CI highlight the confidence and robustness of a result.

Discussion, recommendations and conclusion

The final section of the paper is where the authors discuss their results and link them to other literature in the area (some of which may have been included in the literature review at the start of the paper). This reminds the reader of what is already known, what the study has found and what new information it adds. The discussion should demonstrate how the authors interpreted their results and how they contribute to new knowledge in the area. Implications for practice and future research should also be highlighted in this section of the paper.

A few other areas you may find helpful are:

Limitations of the study.

Conflicts of interest.

Table 2 provides a useful tool to help you apply the learning in this paper to the critiquing of quantitative research papers.

Quantitative paper appraisal checklist

• 1. ↵ Nursing and Midwifery Council , 2015 . The code: standard of conduct, performance and ethics for nurses and midwives https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/nmc-publications/nmc-code.pdf ( accessed 21.8.18 ).
• Gerrish K ,
• Moorley C ,
• Tunariu A , et al
• Shorten A ,

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent Not required.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Correction notice This article has been updated since its original publication to update p values from 0.5 to 0.05 throughout.

Linked Articles

• Miscellaneous Correction: How to appraise quantitative research BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and RCN Publishing Company Ltd Evidence-Based Nursing 2019; 22 62-62 Published Online First: 31 Jan 2019. doi: 10.1136/eb-2018-102996corr1

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Methods for Quantitative Research in Psychology

• Conducting Research

Psychological Research

August 2023

This seven-hour course provides a comprehensive exploration of research methodologies, beginning with the foundational steps of the scientific method. Students will learn about hypotheses, experimental design, data collection, and the analysis of results. Emphasis is placed on defining variables accurately, distinguishing between independent, dependent, and controlled variables, and understanding their roles in research.

The course delves into major research designs, including experimental, correlational, and observational studies. Students will compare and contrast these designs, evaluating their strengths and weaknesses in various contexts. This comparison extends to the types of research questions scientists pose, highlighting how different designs are suited to different inquiries.

A critical component of the course is developing the ability to judge the quality of sources for literature reviews. Students will learn criteria for evaluating the credibility, relevance, and reliability of sources, ensuring that their understanding of the research literature is built on a solid foundation.

Reliability and validity are key concepts addressed in the course. Students will explore what it means for an observation to be reliable, focusing on consistency and repeatability. They will also compare and contrast different forms of validity, such as internal, external, construct, and criterion validity, and how these apply to various research designs.

The course concepts are thoroughly couched in examples drawn from the psychological research literature. By the end of the course, students will be equipped with the skills to design robust research studies, critically evaluate sources, and understand the nuances of reliability and validity in scientific research. This knowledge will be essential for conducting high-quality research and contributing to the scientific community.

Learning objectives

• Describe the steps of the scientific method.
• Specify how variables are defined.
• Compare and contrast the major research designs.
• Explain how to judge the quality of a source for a literature review.
• Compare and contrast the kinds of research questions scientists ask.
• Explain what it means for an observation to be reliable.
• Compare and contrast forms of validity as they apply to the major research designs.

This program does not offer CE credit.

More in this series

Introduces applying statistical methods effectively in psychology or related fields for undergraduates, high school students, and professionals.

August 2023 On Demand Training

Introduces the importance of ethical practice in scientific research for undergraduates, high school students, and professionals.

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Quantitative reviewing: the literature review as scientific inquiry

• PMID: 6869492
• DOI: 10.5014/ajot.37.5.313

The literature review process is conceptualized as a form of scientific inquiry that involves methodological requirements and inferences similar to those employed in primary research. Five stages of quantitative reviewing that parallel stages in primary investigation are identified and briefly described. They include problem formation, data collection, data evaluation, analysis and interpretation, and reporting the results. The first two stages provide information and guidelines relevant to reviewers' employing traditional narrative procedures or conducting reviews of qualitative research literature. The final three stages relate specifically to the methodology of quantitative reviewing. The argument is made that quantitative reviewing procedures represent a paradigm shift that can assist researchers and clinicians in occupational therapy to establish a scientific data base that will serve to guide theory development and validate clinical practice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Quantitative reviewing of medical literature. An approach to synthesizing research results in clinical pediatrics. Ottenbacher KJ, Petersen P. Ottenbacher KJ, et al. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1984 Aug;23(8):423-7. doi: 10.1177/000992288402300801. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1984. PMID: 6734016
• Reviewing the methodology of an integrative review. Hopia H, Latvala E, Liimatainen L. Hopia H, et al. Scand J Caring Sci. 2016 Dec;30(4):662-669. doi: 10.1111/scs.12327. Epub 2016 Apr 14. Scand J Caring Sci. 2016. PMID: 27074869 Review.
• Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Manchikanti L, Datta S, Smith HS, Hirsch JA. Manchikanti L, et al. Pain Physician. 2009 Sep-Oct;12(5):819-50. Pain Physician. 2009. PMID: 19787009
• Translational Metabolomics of Head Injury: Exploring Dysfunctional Cerebral Metabolism with Ex Vivo NMR Spectroscopy-Based Metabolite Quantification. Wolahan SM, Hirt D, Glenn TC. Wolahan SM, et al. In: Kobeissy FH, editor. Brain Neurotrauma: Molecular, Neuropsychological, and Rehabilitation Aspects. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor & Francis; 2015. Chapter 25. In: Kobeissy FH, editor. Brain Neurotrauma: Molecular, Neuropsychological, and Rehabilitation Aspects. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor & Francis; 2015. Chapter 25. PMID: 26269925 Free Books & Documents. Review.
• Association between pacifier use and breast-feeding, sudden infant death syndrome, infection and dental malocclusion. Callaghan A, Kendall G, Lock C, Mahony A, Payne J, Verrier L. Callaghan A, et al. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2005 Jul;3(6):147-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-6988.2005.00024.x. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2005. PMID: 21631747
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Silverchair Information Systems

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

PSYC 210: Foundations of Psychology

• Tips for Searching for Articles

What is a literature review?

Conducting a literature review, organizing a literature review, writing a literature review, helpful book.

• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Google Scholar

A  literature review  is a compilation of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

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
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches

Source: "What is a Literature Review?", Old Dominion University,  https://guides.lib.odu.edu/c.php?g=966167&p=6980532

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question. 

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question. It 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.
• Write down terms that are related to your question for they will be useful for searches later. 

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.
• Consider these things when planning your time for research. 

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

• By Research Guide 

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature. 

• Review the abstracts carefully - this will save you time!
• Many databases will have a search history tab for you to return to for later.
• Use bibliographies and references of research studies to locate others.
• Use citation management software such as Zotero to keep track of your research citations. 

5. Review the literature. 

Some questions to help you analyze the research: 

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

Source: "Literature Review", University of West Florida,  https://libguides.uwf.edu/c.php?g=215113&p=5139469

A literature review is not a summary of the sources but a synthesis of the sources. It is made up of the topics the sources are discussing. Each section of the review is focused on a topic, and the relevant sources are discussed within the context of that topic. 

1. Select the most relevant material from the sources

• Could be material that answers the question directly
• Extract as a direct quote or paraphrase 

2. Arrange that material so you can focus on it apart from the source text itself

• You are now working with fewer words/passages
• Material is all in one place

3. Group similar points, themes, or topics together and label them 

• The labels describe the points, themes, or topics that are the backbone of your paper’s structure

4. Order those points, themes, or topics as you will discuss them in the paper, and turn the labels into actual assertions

• A sentence that makes a point that is directly related to your research question or thesis 

This is now the outline for your literature review. 

Source: "Organizing a Review of the Literature – The Basics", George Mason University Writing Center,  https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/writing-resources/research-based-writing/organizing-literature-reviews-the-basics

• Literature Review Matrix Here is a template on how people tend to organize their thoughts. The matrix template is a good way to write out the key parts of each article and take notes. Downloads as an XLSX file.

The most common way that literature reviews are organized is by theme or author. Find a general pattern of structure for the review. When organizing the review, consider the following: 

• the methodology 
• the quality of the findings or conclusions
• major strengths and weaknesses
• any other important information

Writing Tips: 

• Be selective - Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. It should directly relate to the review's focus.
• Use quotes sparingly.
• Keep your own voice - Your voice (the writer's) should remain front and center. .   
• Aim for one key figure/table per section to illustrate complex content, summarize a large body of relevant data, or describe the order of a process
• Legend below image/figure and above table and always refer to them in text 

Source: "Composing your Literature Review", Florida A&M University,  https://library.famu.edu/c.php?g=577356&p=3982811

• << Previous: Tips for Searching for Articles
• Next: Citing Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 3:43 PM
• URL: https://infoguides.pepperdine.edu/PSYC210

Explore. Discover. Create.

Copyright ©  2022  Pepperdine University

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Request Info
• Search Search Site Faculty/Staff
• Open Navigation Menu Menu Close Navigation Menu
• Literature Review Guidelines

Making sense of what has been written on your topic.

Goals of a literature review:.

Before doing work in primary sources, historians must know what has been written on their topic.  They must be familiar with theories and arguments–as well as facts–that appear in secondary sources.

Before you proceed with your research project, you too must be familiar with the literature: you do not want to waste time on theories that others have disproved and you want to take full advantage of what others have argued.  You want to be able to discuss and analyze your topic.

Your literature review will demonstrate your familiarity with your topic’s secondary literature.

GUIDELINES FOR A LITERATURE REVIEW:

1) LENGTH:  8-10 pages of text for Senior Theses (485) (consult with your professor for other classes), with either footnotes or endnotes and with a works-consulted bibliography. [See also the  citation guide  on this site.]

2) NUMBER OF WORKS REVIEWED: Depends on the assignment, but for Senior Theses (485), at least ten is typical.

3) CHOOSING WORKS:

Your literature review must include enough works to provide evidence of both the breadth and the depth of the research on your topic or, at least, one important angle of it.  The number of works necessary to do this will depend on your topic. For most topics, AT LEAST TEN works (mostly books but also significant scholarly articles) are necessary, although you will not necessarily give all of them equal treatment in your paper (e.g., some might appear in notes rather than the essay). 4) ORGANIZING/ARRANGING THE LITERATURE:

As you uncover the literature (i.e., secondary writing) on your topic, you should determine how the various pieces relate to each other.  Your ability to do so will demonstrate your understanding of the evolution of literature.

You might determine that the literature makes sense when divided by time period, by methodology, by sources, by discipline, by thematic focus, by race, ethnicity, and/or gender of author, or by political ideology.  This list is not exhaustive.  You might also decide to subdivide categories based on other criteria.  There is no “rule” on divisions—historians wrote the literature without consulting each other and without regard to the goal of fitting into a neat, obvious organization useful to students.

The key step is to FIGURE OUT the most logical, clarifying angle.  Do not arbitrarily choose a categorization; use the one that the literature seems to fall into.  How do you do that?  For every source, you should note its thesis, date, author background, methodology, and sources.  Does a pattern appear when you consider such information from each of your sources?  If so, you have a possible thesis about the literature.  If not, you might still have a thesis.

Consider: Are there missing elements in the literature?  For example, no works published during a particular (usually fairly lengthy) time period?  Or do studies appear after long neglect of a topic?  Do interpretations change at some point?  Does the major methodology being used change?  Do interpretations vary based on sources used?

Follow these links for more help on analyzing  historiography  and  historical perspective .

5) CONTENTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW:

The literature review is a research paper with three ingredients:

a) A brief discussion of the issue (the person, event, idea). [While this section should be brief, it needs to set up the thesis and literature that follow.] b) Your thesis about the literature c) A clear argument, using the works on topic as evidence, i.e., you discuss the sources in relation to your thesis, not as a separate topic.

These ingredients must be presented in an essay with an introduction, body, and conclusion.

6) ARGUING YOUR THESIS:

The thesis of a literature review should not only describe how the literature has evolved, but also provide a clear evaluation of that literature.  You should assess the literature in terms of the quality of either individual works or categories of works.  For instance, you might argue that a certain approach (e.g. social history, cultural history, or another) is better because it deals with a more complex view of the issue or because they use a wider array of source materials more effectively. You should also ensure that you integrate that evaluation throughout your argument.  Doing so might include negative assessments of some works in order to reinforce your argument regarding the positive qualities of other works and approaches to the topic.

Within each group, you should provide essential information about each work: the author’s thesis, the work’s title and date, the author’s supporting arguments and major evidence.

In most cases, arranging the sources chronologically by publication date within each section makes the most sense because earlier works influenced later ones in one way or another.  Reference to publication date also indicates that you are aware of this significant historiographical element.

As you discuss each work, DO NOT FORGET WHY YOU ARE DISCUSSING IT.  YOU ARE PRESENTING AND SUPPORTING A THESIS ABOUT THE LITERATURE.

When discussing a particular work for the first time, you should refer to it by the author’s full name, the work’s title, and year of publication (either in parentheses after the title or worked into the sentence).

For example, “The field of slavery studies has recently been transformed by Ben Johnson’s The New Slave (2001)” and “Joe Doe argues in his 1997 study, Slavery in America, that . . . .”

Your paper should always note secondary sources’ relationship to each other, particularly in terms of your thesis about the literature (e.g., “Unlike Smith’s work, Mary Brown’s analysis reaches the conclusion that . . . .” and “Because of Anderson’s reliance on the president’s personal papers, his interpretation differs from Barry’s”). The various pieces of the literature are “related” to each other, so you need to indicate to the reader some of that relationship.  (It helps the reader follow your thesis, and it convinces the reader that you know what you are talking about.)

7) DOCUMENTATION:

Each source you discuss in your paper must be documented using footnotes/endnotes and a bibliography.  Providing author and title and date in the paper is not sufficient.  Use correct Turabian/Chicago Manual of Style form.  [See  Bibliography  and  Footnotes/Endnotes  pages.]

In addition, further supporting, but less significant, sources should be included in  content foot or endnotes .  (e.g., “For a similar argument to Ben Johnson’s, see John Terry, The Slave Who Was New (New York: W. W. Norton, 1985), 3-45.”)

8 ) CONCLUSION OF LITERATURE REVIEW:

Your conclusion should not only reiterate your argument (thesis), but also discuss questions that remain unanswered by the literature.  What has the literature accomplished?  What has not been studied?  What debates need to be settled?

Additional writing guidelines

History and American Studies

• About the Department
• Major Requirements & Courses
• What courses will I take as an History major?
• What can I do with my History degree?
• History 485
• Methodology
• Choosing a Topic
• Book Reviews
• Historiographic Clues
• Understanding Historical Perspective
• Sample Literature Review
• Using Quotations
• Ellipses and Brackets
• Footnotes and Endnotes
• Content Notes
• Citation Guide
• Citing Non-Print Resources
• How to Annotate
• Annotated Examples
• Journals vs. Magazines
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Historians Define Plagiarism
• Plagiarism Tutorial
• UMW Honor System
• Presentation Guidelines
• Tips for Leading Seminars
• Hints for Class Discussion
• Speaking Center
• Guidelines for a Research Paper
• Library Research Plan
• How to Use ILL
• Database Guide
• Guide to Online Research
• Writing Guidelines
• Recognizing Passive Voice
• Introduction and Conclusion
• MS Word’s Grammar and Spellcheck
• Writing Center
• What You Need to Know
• Links to Online Primary Sources by Region
• What will I learn from my American Studies major?
• What courses will I take as an American Studies major?
• What can I do with my American Studies degree?
• American Studies 485
• For Prospective Students
• Honors and Award Recipients
• Internships

Alumni Intros

How have History & American Studies majors built careers after earning their degrees? Learn more by clicking the image above.  

Recent Posts

• History and American Studies Symposium–April 26, 2024
• Fall 2024 Courses
• Fall 2023 Symposium – 12/8 – All Welcome!
• Spring ’24 Course Flyers
• Internship Opportunity – Chesapeake Gateways Ambassador
• Congratulations to our Graduates!
• History and American Studies Symposium–April 21, 2023
• View umwhistory’s profile on Facebook
• View umwhistory’s profile on Twitter

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMJ Glob Health
• v.4(Suppl 1); 2019

Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods

1 School of Social Sciences, Bangor University, Wales, UK

Andrew Booth

2 School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Graham Moore

3 School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Wales, UK

Kate Flemming

4 Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, York, UK

Özge Tunçalp

5 Department of Reproductive Health and Research including UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

Elham Shakibazadeh

6 Department of Health Education and Promotion, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Associated Data

bmjgh-2018-000893supp001.pdf

bmjgh-2018-000893supp002.pdf

bmjgh-2018-000893supp003.pdf

bmjgh-2018-000893supp005.pdf

bmjgh-2018-000893supp004.pdf

Guideline developers are increasingly dealing with more difficult decisions concerning whether to recommend complex interventions in complex and highly variable health systems. There is greater recognition that both quantitative and qualitative evidence can be combined in a mixed-method synthesis and that this can be helpful in understanding how complexity impacts on interventions in specific contexts. This paper aims to clarify the different purposes, review designs, questions, synthesis methods and opportunities to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence to explore the complexity of complex interventions and health systems. Three case studies of guidelines developed by WHO, which incorporated quantitative and qualitative evidence, are used to illustrate possible uses of mixed-method reviews and evidence. Additional examples of methods that can be used or may have potential for use in a guideline process are outlined. Consideration is given to the opportunities for potential integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence at different stages of the review and guideline process. Encouragement is given to guideline commissioners and developers and review authors to consider including quantitative and qualitative evidence. Recommendations are made concerning the future development of methods to better address questions in systematic reviews and guidelines that adopt a complexity perspective.

Summary box

• When combined in a mixed-method synthesis, quantitative and qualitative evidence can potentially contribute to understanding how complex interventions work and for whom, and how the complex health systems into which they are implemented respond and adapt.
• The different purposes and designs for combining quantitative and qualitative evidence in a mixed-method synthesis for a guideline process are described.
• Questions relevant to gaining an understanding of the complexity of complex interventions and the wider health systems within which they are implemented that can be addressed by mixed-method syntheses are presented.
• The practical methodological guidance in this paper is intended to help guideline producers and review authors commission and conduct mixed-method syntheses where appropriate.
• If more mixed-method syntheses are conducted, guideline developers will have greater opportunities to access this evidence to inform decision-making.

Introduction

Recognition has grown that while quantitative methods remain vital, they are usually insufficient to address complex health systems related research questions. 1 Quantitative methods rely on an ability to anticipate what must be measured in advance. Introducing change into a complex health system gives rise to emergent reactions, which cannot be fully predicted in advance. Emergent reactions can often only be understood through combining quantitative methods with a more flexible qualitative lens. 2 Adopting a more pluralist position enables a diverse range of research options to the researcher depending on the research question being investigated. 3–5 As a consequence, where a research study sits within the multitude of methods available is driven by the question being asked, rather than any particular methodological or philosophical stance. 6

Publication of guidance on designing complex intervention process evaluations and other works advocating mixed-methods approaches to intervention research have stimulated better quality evidence for synthesis. 1 7–13 Methods for synthesising qualitative 14 and mixed-method evidence have been developed or are in development. Mixed-method research and review definitions are outlined in box 1 .

Defining mixed-method research and reviews

Pluye and Hong 52 define mixed-methods research as “a research approach in which a researcher integrates (a) qualitative and quantitative research questions, (b) qualitative research methods* and quantitative research designs, (c) techniques for collecting and analyzing qualitative and quantitative evidence, and (d) qualitative findings and quantitative results”.A mixed-method synthesis can integrate quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method evidence or data from primary studies.† Mixed-method primary studies are usually disaggregated into quantitative and qualitative evidence and data for the purposes of synthesis. Thomas and Harden further define three ways in which reviews are mixed. 53

• The types of studies included and hence the type of findings to be synthesised (ie, qualitative/textual and quantitative/numerical).
• The types of synthesis method used (eg, statistical meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis).
• The mode of analysis: theory testing AND theory building.

*A qualitative study is one that uses qualitative methods of data collection and analysis to produce a narrative understanding of the phenomena of interest. Qualitative methods of data collection may include, for example, interviews, focus groups, observations and analysis of documents.

†The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods group coined the term ‘qualitative evidence synthesis’ to mean that the synthesis could also include qualitative data. For example, qualitative data from case studies, grey literature reports and open-ended questions from surveys. ‘Evidence’ and ‘data’ are used interchangeably in this paper.

This paper is one of a series that aims to explore the implications of complexity for systematic reviews and guideline development, commissioned by WHO. This paper is concerned with the methodological implications of including quantitative and qualitative evidence in mixed-method systematic reviews and guideline development for complex interventions. The guidance was developed through a process of bringing together experts in the field, literature searching and consensus building with end users (guideline developers, clinicians and reviewers). We clarify the different purposes, review designs, questions and synthesis methods that may be applicable to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence to explore the complexity of complex interventions and health systems. Three case studies of WHO guidelines that incorporated quantitative and qualitative evidence are used to illustrate possible uses of mixed-method reviews and mechanisms of integration ( table 1 , online supplementary files 1–3 ). Additional examples of methods that can be used or may have potential for use in a guideline process are outlined. Opportunities for potential integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence at different stages of the review and guideline process are presented. Specific considerations when using an evidence to decision framework such as the Developing and Evaluating Communication strategies to support Informed Decisions and practice based on Evidence (DECIDE) framework 15 or the new WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision framework 16 at the review design and evidence to decision stage are outlined. See online supplementary file 4 for an example of a health systems DECIDE framework and Rehfuess et al 16 for the new WHO-INTEGRATE framework. Encouragement is given to guideline commissioners and developers and review authors to consider including quantitative and qualitative evidence in guidelines of complex interventions that take a complexity perspective and health systems focus.

Designs and methods and their use or applicability in guidelines and systematic reviews taking a complexity perspective

Supplementary data

Taking a complexity perspective.

The first paper in this series 17 outlines aspects of complexity associated with complex interventions and health systems that can potentially be explored by different types of evidence, including synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Petticrew et al 17 distinguish between a complex interventions perspective and a complex systems perspective. A complex interventions perspective defines interventions as having “implicit conceptual boundaries, representing a flexible, but common set of practices, often linked by an explicit or implicit theory about how they work”. A complex systems perspective differs in that “ complexity arises from the relationships and interactions between a system’s agents (eg, people, or groups that interact with each other and their environment), and its context. A system perspective conceives the intervention as being part of the system, and emphasises changes and interconnections within the system itself”. Aspects of complexity associated with implementation of complex interventions in health systems that could potentially be addressed with a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence are summarised in table 2 . Another paper in the series outlines criteria used in a new evidence to decision framework for making decisions about complex interventions implemented in complex systems, against which the need for quantitative and qualitative evidence can be mapped. 16 A further paper 18 that explores how context is dealt with in guidelines and reviews taking a complexity perspective also recommends using both quantitative and qualitative evidence to better understand context as a source of complexity. Mixed-method syntheses of quantitative and qualitative evidence can also help with understanding of whether there has been theory failure and or implementation failure. The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group provide additional guidance on exploring implementation and theory failure that can be adapted to address aspects of complexity of complex interventions when implemented in health systems. 19

Health-system complexity-related questions that a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence could address (derived from Petticrew et al 17 )

It may not be apparent which aspects of complexity or which elements of the complex intervention or health system can be explored in a guideline process, or whether combining qualitative and quantitative evidence in a mixed-method synthesis will be useful, until the available evidence is scoped and mapped. 17 20 A more extensive lead in phase is typically required to scope the available evidence, engage with stakeholders and to refine the review parameters and questions that can then be mapped against potential review designs and methods of synthesis. 20 At the scoping stage, it is also common to decide on a theoretical perspective 21 or undertake further work to refine a theoretical perspective. 22 This is also the stage to begin articulating the programme theory of the complex intervention that may be further developed to refine an understanding of complexity and show how the intervention is implemented in and impacts on the wider health system. 17 23 24 In practice, this process can be lengthy, iterative and fluid with multiple revisions to the review scope, often developing and adapting a logic model 17 as the available evidence becomes known and the potential to incorporate different types of review designs and syntheses of quantitative and qualitative evidence becomes better understood. 25 Further questions, propositions or hypotheses may emerge as the reviews progress and therefore the protocols generally need to be developed iteratively over time rather than a priori.

Following a scoping exercise and definition of key questions, the next step in the guideline development process is to identify existing or commission new systematic reviews to locate and summarise the best available evidence in relation to each question. For example, case study 2, ‘Optimising health worker roles for maternal and newborn health through task shifting’, included quantitative reviews that did and did not take an additional complexity perspective, and qualitative evidence syntheses that were able to explain how specific elements of complexity impacted on intervention outcomes within the wider health system. Further understanding of health system complexity was facilitated through the conduct of additional country-level case studies that contributed to an overall understanding of what worked and what happened when lay health worker interventions were implemented. See table 1 online supplementary file 2 .

There are a few existing examples, which we draw on in this paper, but integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in a mixed-method synthesis is relatively uncommon in a guideline process. Box 2 includes a set of key questions that guideline developers and review authors contemplating combining quantitative and qualitative evidence in mixed-methods design might ask. Subsequent sections provide more information and signposting to further reading to help address these key questions.

Key questions that guideline developers and review authors contemplating combining quantitative and qualitative evidence in a mixed-methods design might ask

Compound questions requiring both quantitative and qualitative evidence?

Questions requiring mixed-methods studies?

Separate quantitative and qualitative questions?

Separate quantitative and qualitative research studies?

Related quantitative and qualitative research studies?

Mixed-methods studies?

Quantitative unpublished data and/or qualitative unpublished data, eg, narrative survey data?

Throughout the review?

Following separate reviews?

At the question point?

At the synthesis point?

At the evidence to recommendations stage?

Or a combination?

Narrative synthesis or summary?

Quantitising approach, eg, frequency analysis?

Qualitising approach, eg, thematic synthesis?

Tabulation?

Logic model?

Conceptual model/framework?

Graphical approach?

• WHICH: Which mixed-method designs, methodologies and methods best fit into a guideline process to inform recommendations?

Complexity-related questions that a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence can potentially address

Petticrew et al 17 define the different aspects of complexity and examples of complexity-related questions that can potentially be explored in guidelines and systematic reviews taking a complexity perspective. Relevant aspects of complexity outlined by Petticrew et al 17 are summarised in table 2 below, together with the corresponding questions that could be addressed in a synthesis combining qualitative and quantitative evidence. Importantly, the aspects of complexity and their associated concepts of interest have however yet to be translated fully in primary health research or systematic reviews. There are few known examples where selected complexity concepts have been used to analyse or reanalyse a primary intervention study. Most notable is Chandler et al 26 who specifically set out to identify and translate a set of relevant complexity theory concepts for application in health systems research. Chandler then reanalysed a trial process evaluation using selected complexity theory concepts to better understand the complex causal pathway in the health system that explains some aspects of complexity in table 2 .

Rehfeuss et al 16 also recommends upfront consideration of the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision criteria when planning a guideline and formulating questions. The criteria reflect WHO norms and values and take account of a complexity perspective. The framework can be used by guideline development groups as a menu to decide which criteria to prioritise, and which study types and synthesis methods can be used to collect evidence for each criterion. Many of the criteria and their related questions can be addressed using a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence: the balance of benefits and harms, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, societal implications and feasibility (see table 3 ). Similar aspects in the DECIDE framework 15 could also be addressed using synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence.

Integrate evidence to decision framework criteria, example questions and types of studies to potentially address these questions (derived from Rehfeuss et al 16 )

GIS, Geographical Information System; RCT, randomised controlled trial.

Questions as anchors or compasses

Questions can serve as an ‘anchor’ by articulating the specific aspects of complexity to be explored (eg, Is successful implementation of the intervention context dependent?). 27 Anchor questions such as “How does intervention x impact on socioeconomic inequalities in health behaviour/outcome x” are the kind of health system question that requires a synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative evidence and hence a mixed-method synthesis. Quantitative evidence can quantify the difference in effect, but does not answer the question of how . The ‘how’ question can be partly answered with quantitative and qualitative evidence. For example, quantitative evidence may reveal where socioeconomic status and inequality emerges in the health system (an emergent property) by exploring questions such as “ Does patterning emerge during uptake because fewer people from certain groups come into contact with an intervention in the first place? ” or “ are people from certain backgrounds more likely to drop out, or to maintain effects beyond an intervention differently? ” Qualitative evidence may help understand the reasons behind all of these mechanisms. Alternatively, questions can act as ‘compasses’ where a question sets out a starting point from which to explore further and to potentially ask further questions or develop propositions or hypotheses to explore through a complexity perspective (eg, What factors enhance or hinder implementation?). 27 Other papers in this series provide further guidance on developing questions for qualitative evidence syntheses and guidance on question formulation. 14 28

For anchor and compass questions, additional application of a theory (eg, complexity theory) can help focus evidence synthesis and presentation to explore and explain complexity issues. 17 21 Development of a review specific logic model(s) can help to further refine an initial understanding of any complexity-related issues of interest associated with a specific intervention, and if appropriate the health system or section of the health system within which to contextualise the review question and analyse data. 17 23–25 Specific tools are available to help clarify context and complex interventions. 17 18

If a complexity perspective, and certain criteria within evidence to decision frameworks, is deemed relevant and desirable by guideline developers, it is only possible to pursue a complexity perspective if the evidence is available. Careful scoping using knowledge maps or scoping reviews will help inform development of questions that are answerable with available evidence. 20 If evidence of effect is not available, then a different approach to develop questions leading to a more general narrative understanding of what happened when complex interventions were implemented in a health system will be required (such as in case study 3—risk communication guideline). This should not mean that the original questions developed for which no evidence was found when scoping the literature were not important. An important function of creating a knowledge map is also to identify gaps to inform a future research agenda.

Table 2 and online supplementary files 1–3 outline examples of questions in the three case studies, which were all ‘COMPASS’ questions for the qualitative evidence syntheses.

Types of integration and synthesis designs in mixed-method reviews

The shift towards integration of qualitative and quantitative evidence in primary research has, in recent years, begun to be mirrored within research synthesis. 29–31 The natural extension to undertaking quantitative or qualitative reviews has been the development of methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence within reviews, and within the guideline process using evidence to decision-frameworks. Advocating the integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence assumes a complementarity between research methodologies, and a need for both types of evidence to inform policy and practice. Below, we briefly outline the current designs for integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence within a mixed-method review or synthesis.

One of the early approaches to integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence detailed by Sandelowski et al 32 advocated three basic review designs: segregated, integrated and contingent designs, which have been further developed by Heyvaert et al 33 ( box 3 ).

Segregated, integrated and contingent designs 32 33

Segregated design.

Conventional separate distinction between quantitative and qualitative approaches based on the assumption they are different entities and should be treated separately; can be distinguished from each other; their findings warrant separate analyses and syntheses. Ultimately, the separate synthesis results can themselves be synthesised.

Integrated design

The methodological differences between qualitative and quantitative studies are minimised as both are viewed as producing findings that can be readily synthesised into one another because they address the same research purposed and questions. Transformation involves either turning qualitative data into quantitative (quantitising) or quantitative findings are turned into qualitative (qualitising) to facilitate their integration.

Contingent design

Takes a cyclical approach to synthesis, with the findings from one synthesis informing the focus of the next synthesis, until all the research objectives have been addressed. Studies are not necessarily grouped and categorised as qualitative or quantitative.

A recent review of more than 400 systematic reviews 34 combining quantitative and qualitative evidence identified two main synthesis designs—convergent and sequential. In a convergent design, qualitative and quantitative evidence is collated and analysed in a parallel or complementary manner, whereas in a sequential synthesis, the collation and analysis of quantitative and qualitative evidence takes place in a sequence with one synthesis informing the other ( box 4 ). 6 These designs can be seen to build on the work of Sandelowski et al , 32 35 particularly in relation to the transformation of data from qualitative to quantitative (and vice versa) and the sequential synthesis design, with a cyclical approach to reviewing that evokes Sandelowski’s contingent design.

Convergent and sequential synthesis designs 34

Convergent synthesis design.

Qualitative and quantitative research is collected and analysed at the same time in a parallel or complementary manner. Integration can occur at three points:

a. Data-based convergent synthesis design

All included studies are analysed using the same methods and results presented together. As only one synthesis method is used, data transformation occurs (qualitised or quantised). Usually addressed one review question.

b. Results-based convergent synthesis design

Qualitative and quantitative data are analysed and presented separately but integrated using a further synthesis method; eg, narratively, tables, matrices or reanalysing evidence. The results of both syntheses are combined in a third synthesis. Usually addresses an overall review question with subquestions.

c. Parallel-results convergent synthesis design

Qualitative and quantitative data are analysed and presented separately with integration occurring in the interpretation of results in the discussion section. Usually addresses two or more complimentary review questions.

Sequential synthesis design

A two-phase approach, data collection and analysis of one type of evidence (eg, qualitative), occurs after and is informed by the collection and analysis of the other type (eg, quantitative). Usually addresses an overall question with subquestions with both syntheses complementing each other.

The three case studies ( table 1 , online supplementary files 1–3 ) illustrate the diverse combination of review designs and synthesis methods that were considered the most appropriate for specific guidelines.

Methods for conducting mixed-method reviews in the context of guidelines for complex interventions

In this section, we draw on examples where specific review designs and methods have been or can be used to explore selected aspects of complexity in guidelines or systematic reviews. We also identify other review methods that could potentially be used to explore aspects of complexity. Of particular note, we could not find any specific examples of systematic methods to synthesise highly diverse research designs as advocated by Petticrew et al 17 and summarised in tables 2 and 3 . For example, we could not find examples of methods to synthesise qualitative studies, case studies, quantitative longitudinal data, possibly historical data, effectiveness studies providing evidence of differential effects across different contexts, and system modelling studies (eg, agent-based modelling) to explore system adaptivity.

There are different ways that quantitative and qualitative evidence can be integrated into a review and then into a guideline development process. In practice, some methods enable integration of different types of evidence in a single synthesis, while in other methods, the single systematic review may include a series of stand-alone reviews or syntheses that are then combined in a cross-study synthesis. Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of different review designs and methods and guidance on their applicability for a guideline process. Designs and methods that have already been used in WHO guideline development are described in part A of the table. Part B outlines a design and method that can be used in a guideline process, and part C covers those that have the potential to integrate quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method evidence in a single review design (such as meta-narrative reviews and Bayesian syntheses), but their application in a guideline context has yet to be demonstrated.

Points of integration when integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in guideline development

Depending on the review design (see boxes 3 and 4 ), integration can potentially take place at a review team and design level, and more commonly at several key points of the review or guideline process. The following sections outline potential points of integration and associated practical considerations when integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in guideline development.

Review team level

In a guideline process, it is common for syntheses of quantitative and qualitative evidence to be done separately by different teams and then to integrate the evidence. A practical consideration relates to the organisation, composition and expertise of the review teams and ways of working. If the quantitative and qualitative reviews are being conducted separately and then brought together by the same team members, who are equally comfortable operating within both paradigms, then a consistent approach across both paradigms becomes possible. If, however, a team is being split between the quantitative and qualitative reviews, then the strengths of specialisation can be harnessed, for example, in quality assessment or synthesis. Optimally, at least one, if not more, of the team members should be involved in both quantitative and qualitative reviews to offer the possibility of making connexions throughout the review and not simply at re-agreed junctures. This mirrors O’Cathain’s conclusion that mixed-methods primary research tends to work only when there is a principal investigator who values and is able to oversee integration. 9 10 While the above decisions have been articulated in the context of two types of evidence, variously quantitative and qualitative, they equally apply when considering how to handle studies reporting a mixed-method study design, where data are usually disaggregated into quantitative and qualitative for the purposes of synthesis (see case study 3—risk communication in humanitarian disasters).

Question formulation

Clearly specified key question(s), derived from a scoping or consultation exercise, will make it clear if quantitative and qualitative evidence is required in a guideline development process and which aspects will be addressed by which types of evidence. For the remaining stages of the process, as documented below, a review team faces challenges as to whether to handle each type of evidence separately, regardless of whether sequentially or in parallel, with a view to joining the two products on completion or to attempt integration throughout the review process. In each case, the underlying choice is of efficiencies and potential comparability vs sensitivity to the underlying paradigm.

Once key questions are clearly defined, the guideline development group typically needs to consider whether to conduct a single sensitive search to address all potential subtopics (lumping) or whether to conduct specific searches for each subtopic (splitting). 36 A related consideration is whether to search separately for qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method evidence ‘streams’ or whether to conduct a single search and then identify specific study types at the subsequent sifting stage. These two considerations often mean a trade-off between a single search process involving very large numbers of records or a more protracted search process retrieving smaller numbers of records. Both approaches have advantages and choice may depend on the respective availability of resources for searching and sifting.

Screening and selecting studies

Closely related to decisions around searching are considerations relating to screening and selecting studies for inclusion in a systematic review. An important consideration here is whether the review team will screen records for all review types, regardless of their subsequent involvement (‘altruistic sifting’), or specialise in screening for the study type with which they are most familiar. The risk of missing relevant reports might be minimised by whole team screening for empirical reports in the first instance and then coding them for a specific quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods report at a subsequent stage.

Assessment of methodological limitations in primary studies

Within a guideline process, review teams may be more limited in their choice of instruments to assess methodological limitations of primary studies as there are mandatory requirements to use the Cochrane risk of bias tool 37 to feed into Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) 38 or to select from a small pool of qualitative appraisal instruments in order to apply GRADE; Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual) 39 to assess the overall certainty or confidence in findings. The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group has recently issued guidance on the selection of appraisal instruments and core assessment criteria. 40 The Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool, which is currently undergoing further development, offers a single quality assessment instrument for quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies. 41 Other options include using corresponding instruments from within the same ‘stable’, for example, using different Critical Appraisal Skills Programme instruments. 42 While using instruments developed by the same team or organisation may achieve a degree of epistemological consonance, benefits may come more from consistency of approach and reporting rather than from a shared view of quality. Alternatively, a more paradigm-sensitive approach would involve selecting the best instrument for each respective review while deferring challenges from later heterogeneity of reporting.

Data extraction

The way in which data and evidence are extracted from primary research studies for review will be influenced by the type of integrated synthesis being undertaken and the review purpose. Initially, decisions need to be made regarding the nature and type of data and evidence that are to be extracted from the included studies. Method-specific reporting guidelines 43 44 provide a good template as to what quantitative and qualitative data it is potentially possible to extract from different types of method-specific study reports, although in practice reporting quality varies. Online supplementary file 5 provides a hypothetical example of the different types of studies from which quantitative and qualitative evidence could potentially be extracted for synthesis.

The decisions around what data or evidence to extract will be guided by how ‘integrated’ the mixed-method review will be. For those reviews where the quantitative and qualitative findings of studies are synthesised separately and integrated at the point of findings (eg, segregated or contingent approaches or sequential synthesis design), separate data extraction approaches will likely be used.

Where integration occurs during the process of the review (eg, integrated approach or convergent synthesis design), an integrated approach to data extraction may be considered, depending on the purpose of the review. This may involve the use of a data extraction framework, the choice of which needs to be congruent with the approach to synthesis chosen for the review. 40 45 The integrative or theoretical framework may be decided on a priori if a pre-developed theoretical or conceptual framework is available in the literature. 27 The development of a framework may alternatively arise from the reading of the included studies, in relation to the purpose of the review, early in the process. The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group provide further guidance on extraction of qualitative data, including use of software. 40

Synthesis and integration

Relatively few synthesis methods start off being integrated from the beginning, and these methods have generally been subject to less testing and evaluation particularly in a guideline context (see table 1 ). A review design that started off being integrated from the beginning may be suitable for some guideline contexts (such as in case study 3—risk communication in humanitarian disasters—where there was little evidence of effect), but in general if there are sufficient trials then a separate systematic review and meta-analysis will be required for a guideline. Other papers in this series offer guidance on methods for synthesising quantitative 46 and qualitative evidence 14 in reviews that take a complexity perspective. Further guidance on integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in a systematic review is provided by the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group. 19 27 29 40 47

Types of findings produced by specific methods

It is highly likely (unless there are well-designed process evaluations) that the primary studies may not themselves seek to address the complexity-related questions required for a guideline process. In which case, review authors will need to configure the available evidence and transform the evidence through the synthesis process to produce explanations, propositions and hypotheses (ie, findings) that were not obvious at primary study level. It is important that guideline commissioners, developers and review authors are aware that specific methods are intended to produce a type of finding with a specific purpose (such as developing new theory in the case of meta-ethnography). 48 Case study 1 (antenatal care guideline) provides an example of how a meta-ethnography was used to develop a new theory as an end product, 48 49 as well as framework synthesis which produced descriptive and explanatory findings that were more easily incorporated into the guideline process. 27 The definitions ( box 5 ) may be helpful when defining the different types of findings.

Different levels of findings

Descriptive findings —qualitative evidence-driven translated descriptive themes that do not move beyond the primary studies.

Explanatory findings —may either be at a descriptive or theoretical level. At the descriptive level, qualitative evidence is used to explain phenomena observed in quantitative results, such as why implementation failed in specific circumstances. At the theoretical level, the transformed and interpreted findings that go beyond the primary studies can be used to explain the descriptive findings. The latter description is generally the accepted definition in the wider qualitative community.

Hypothetical or theoretical finding —qualitative evidence-driven transformed themes (or lines of argument) that go beyond the primary studies. Although similar, Thomas and Harden 56 make a distinction in the purposes between two types of theoretical findings: analytical themes and the product of meta-ethnographies, third-order interpretations. 48

Analytical themes are a product of interrogating descriptive themes by placing the synthesis within an external theoretical framework (such as the review question and subquestions) and are considered more appropriate when a specific review question is being addressed (eg, in a guideline or to inform policy). 56

Third-order interpretations come from translating studies into one another while preserving the original context and are more appropriate when a body of literature is being explored in and of itself with broader or emergent review questions. 48

Bringing mixed-method evidence together in evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks

A critical element of guideline development is the formulation of recommendations by the Guideline Development Group, and EtD frameworks help to facilitate this process. 16 The EtD framework can also be used as a mechanism to integrate and display quantitative and qualitative evidence and findings mapped against the EtD framework domains with hyperlinks to more detailed evidence summaries from contributing reviews (see table 1 ). It is commonly the EtD framework that enables the findings of the separate quantitative and qualitative reviews to be brought together in a guideline process. Specific challenges when populating the DECIDE evidence to decision framework 15 were noted in case study 3 (risk communication in humanitarian disasters) as there was an absence of intervention effect data and the interventions to communicate public health risks were context specific and varied. These problems would not, however, have been addressed by substitution of the DECIDE framework with the new INTEGRATE 16 evidence to decision framework. A d ifferent type of EtD framework needs to be developed for reviews that do not include sufficient evidence of intervention effect.

Mixed-method review and synthesis methods are generally the least developed of all systematic review methods. It is acknowledged that methods for combining quantitative and qualitative evidence are generally poorly articulated. 29 50 There are however some fairly well-established methods for using qualitative evidence to explore aspects of complexity (such as contextual, implementation and outcome complexity), which can be combined with evidence of effect (see sections A and B of table 1 ). 14 There are good examples of systematic reviews that use these methods to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence, and examples of guideline recommendations that were informed by evidence from both quantitative and qualitative reviews (eg, case studies 1–3). With the exception of case study 3 (risk communication), the quantitative and qualitative reviews for these specific guidelines have been conducted separately, and the findings subsequently brought together in an EtD framework to inform recommendations.

Other mixed-method review designs have potential to contribute to understanding of complex interventions and to explore aspects of wider health systems complexity but have not been sufficiently developed and tested for this specific purpose, or used in a guideline process (section C of table 1 ). Some methods such as meta-narrative reviews also explore different questions to those usually asked in a guideline process. Methods for processing (eg, quality appraisal) and synthesising the highly diverse evidence suggested in tables 2 and 3 that are required to explore specific aspects of health systems complexity (such as system adaptivity) and to populate some sections of the INTEGRATE EtD framework remain underdeveloped or in need of development.

In addition to the required methodological development mentioned above, there is no GRADE approach 38 for assessing confidence in findings developed from combined quantitative and qualitative evidence. Another paper in this series outlines how to deal with complexity and grading different types of quantitative evidence, 51 and the GRADE CERQual approach for qualitative findings is described elsewhere, 39 but both these approaches are applied to method-specific and not mixed-method findings. An unofficial adaptation of GRADE was used in the risk communication guideline that reported mixed-method findings. Nor is there a reporting guideline for mixed-method reviews, 47 and for now reports will need to conform to the relevant reporting requirements of the respective method-specific guideline. There is a need to further adapt and test DECIDE, 15 WHO-INTEGRATE 16 and other types of evidence to decision frameworks to accommodate evidence from mixed-method syntheses which do not set out to determine the statistical effects of interventions and in circumstances where there are no trials.

When conducting quantitative and qualitative reviews that will subsequently be combined, there are specific considerations for managing and integrating the different types of evidence throughout the review process. We have summarised different options for combining qualitative and quantitative evidence in mixed-method syntheses that guideline developers and systematic reviewers can choose from, as well as outlining the opportunities to integrate evidence at different stages of the review and guideline development process.

Review commissioners, authors and guideline developers generally have less experience of combining qualitative and evidence in mixed-methods reviews. In particular, there is a relatively small group of reviewers who are skilled at undertaking fully integrated mixed-method reviews. Commissioning additional qualitative and mixed-method reviews creates an additional cost. Large complex mixed-method reviews generally take more time to complete. Careful consideration needs to be given as to which guidelines would benefit most from additional qualitative and mixed-method syntheses. More training is required to develop capacity and there is a need to develop processes for preparing the guideline panel to consider and use mixed-method evidence in their decision-making.

This paper has presented how qualitative and quantitative evidence, combined in mixed-method reviews, can help understand aspects of complex interventions and the systems within which they are implemented. There are further opportunities to use these methods, and to further develop the methods, to look more widely at additional aspects of complexity. There is a range of review designs and synthesis methods to choose from depending on the question being asked or the questions that may emerge during the conduct of the synthesis. Additional methods need to be developed (or existing methods further adapted) in order to synthesise the full range of diverse evidence that is desirable to explore the complexity-related questions when complex interventions are implemented into health systems. We encourage review commissioners and authors, and guideline developers to consider using mixed-methods reviews and synthesis in guidelines and to report on their usefulness in the guideline development process.

Handling editor: Soumyadeep Bhaumik

Contributors: JN, AB, GM, KF, ÖT and ES drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to paper development and writing and agreed the final manuscript. Anayda Portela and Susan Norris from WHO managed the series. Helen Smith was series Editor. We thank all those who provided feedback on various iterations.

Funding: Funding provided by the World Health Organization Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health through grants received from the United States Agency for International Development and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.

Disclaimer: ÖT is a staff member of WHO. The author alone is responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions or policies of WHO.

Competing interests: No financial interests declared. JN, AB and ÖT have an intellectual interest in GRADE CERQual; and JN has an intellectual interest in the iCAT_SR tool.

Patient consent: Not required.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Data sharing statement: No additional data are available.

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.

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
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 03 September 2024

Evaluating coupling coordination between urban smart performance and low-carbon level in China’s pilot cities with mixed methods

• Xiongwei Zhu 1 ,
• Dezhi Li 1 , 2 ,
• Shenghua Zhou 1 ,
• Shiyao Zhu 3 &
• Lugang Yu 1  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  20461 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Climate-change adaptation
• Climate-change impacts
• Environmental impact
• Sustainability

The construction models of smart cities and low-carbon cities are crucial for advancing global urbanization, enhancing urban governance, and addressing major urban challenges. Despite significant advancements in smart and low-carbon city research, a consensus on their coupling coordination remains elusive. This study employs mixed-method research, combining qualitative and quantitative analyses, to investigate the coupling coordination between urban smart performance (SCP) and low-carbon level (LCL) across 52 typical smart and low-carbon pilot cities in China. Independent evaluation models for SCP and LCL qualitatively assess the current state of smart and low-carbon city construction. Additionally, an Entropy–TOPSIS–Pearson correlation–Coupling coordination degree (ETPC) analysis model quantitatively examines their relationship. The results reveal that smart city initiatives in China significantly outperform low-carbon city development, with notable disparities in SCP and LCL between eastern, non-resource-based, and central cities versus western, resource-dependent, and peripheral cities. A strong positive correlation exists between urban SCP and overall LCL, with significant correlations in management, society, and economy, and moderate to weak correlations in environmental quality and culture. As SCP levels improve, the coupling coordination degree between the urban SCP and LCL systems also increases, driven primarily by economic, management, and societal factors. Conversely, the subsystems of low-carbon culture and environmental quality show poorer integration. Based on these findings, this study proposes an evaluation system for smart and low-carbon coupling coordination development, outlining pathways for future development from the perspective of urban complex systems.

Similar content being viewed by others

An empirical analysis of the coupling and coordinated development of new urbanization and ecological welfare performance in China’s Chengdu–Chongqing economic circle

Decomposing the comprehensive efficiency of major cities into divisions on governance, ICT and sustainability: network slack-based measure model

Impact of urban spatial structure elements on carbon emissions efficiency in growing megacities: the case of Chengdu

Introduction.

Cities, as centers of population and economy, play crucial roles in cultural exchange, social integration, transportation, communication, and disaster response in modern societal development 1 , 2 . According to the United Nations Human Settlements program’s “2022 World Cities Report”, as of 2021, the global urbanization rate has reached 56%, and it is projected that by 2050, an additional 2.2 billion people will live in cities, increasing the urbanization rate to 68% 3 . North America and European countries are approaching urbanization saturation, with little fluctuation expected, while urbanization in Asia and Africa will accelerate notably 4 . Particularly in China, the world’s second-largest economy, as of 2022, the urbanization rate is only 64.7%, ranking 96th globally, indicating significant potential for growth compared to developed countries like the USA and the UK 5 . The Chinese government places high importance on urbanization development. It was clearly stated in the “2020 State Council Government Work Report” that new urbanization is a key measure for achieving China’s modernization. Moreover, in the “14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025) and the Long-Range Objectives Through the Year 2035”, detailed strategies are outlined for optimizing the urban layout and promoting urban–rural integration, among other policies to advance urbanization 6 . However, urbanization, as a process of continuous concentration of population and industrial elements in cities, while bringing opportunities for economic growth and social development, also presents a series of challenges such as environmental pressure, resource constraints, and increased demand for services 7 , 8 .

In 2008, the American company IBM introduced the concept of a “Smart Planet”, which garnered widespread attention globally 9 . The concept of a smart city, as a specific application within this framework, aims to enhance urban management and service efficiency through the integration and innovative application of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), thereby improving the quality of life for residents, optimizing resource use, reducing environmental impact, and promoting economic development and social progress 10 , 11 . Currently, the smart city construction model is seen as one of the effective means to advance global urbanization, improve urban governance, and solve major urban issues 12 . In 2009, IBM released the “Smart Planet: Winning in China” plan, outlining China’s five major thematic tasks in constructing a “Smart Planet” (sustainable economic development, corporate competitiveness, energy efficiency, environmental protection, and social harmony) 13 . The construction of smart cities, as a key measure to achieve these thematic tasks, has received significant attention from the Chinese government. In 2014, the Chinese government elevated smart city construction to a “national strategy”, considering it a cornerstone of China’s future economic and urban development strategies. By 2016, over 500 Chinese cities had initiated or announced smart city pilot construction plans, accounting for nearly half of all such projects planned or underway globally 14 . In recent years, with the continuous release of policy benefits related to smart city construction in China and substantial capital investment, China has become a leader in driving global smart city initiatives 15 . However, an undeniable fact is that while smart city construction models promote economic development and improve the quality of life for residents, the new infrastructure supporting the operation of smart cities, such as big data centers, 5G shared base stations, and Beidou ground-based augmentation stations, result in substantial energy consumption and significant carbon emissions 16 . Research shows that in 2018, the total electricity consumption of data centers in China supporting IT infrastructure reached 160.9 billion kilowatt-hours, exceeding the total electricity consumption of Shanghai for that year and accounting for about 2% of China’s total electricity consumption, with carbon emissions nearing 100 million tons 17 . The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) predicts that by 2035, the total electricity consumption of China’s data centers and 5G base stations will reach 695.1–782 billion kilowatt-hours, accounting for 5–7% of China’s total electricity consumption, with total carbon emissions reaching 230–310 million tons 18 .

In 2022, global energy-related CO 2 emissions increased by 0.9%, reaching a record high of over 36.8 Gt. Concurrently, atmospheric CO 2 concentrations continued to rise, averaging 417.06 parts per million, marking the eleventh consecutive year with an increase exceeding 2 ppm 19 . According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the global surface temperature in September 2023 was 1.44 °C higher than the twentieth century average, setting a new historical record 20 . The continuous rise in global temperatures has led to frequent occurrences of disastrous events such as extreme heat, torrential rains, floods, forest fires, and hurricanes in recent years, causing significant loss of life and property damage 21 . World Health Organization (WHO) data indicates that in 2022, there were at least 29 weather disaster events globally causing billions of dollars in losses, with approximately 61,672 deaths in Europe due to heatwave-related causes 22 . As global climate issues become increasingly severe, the call for global carbon emission reduction is growing louder. Cities, as highly concentrated areas of population and economic activities, according to the Global Report by the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), consume 60–80% of the global energy and contribute to over 75% of global CO 2 emissions 23 . As the largest global emitter of carbon, China’s CO 2 emissions in 2022 accounted for 27% of the global total 24 . Given China’s influence in the global economy, technological innovation, and international cooperation, international organizations and global climate policies generally believe that China’s efforts in carbon reduction are crucial to achieving the global 1.5 °C climate goal 25 . In recent years, the Chinese government has actively promoted the construction of low-carbon pilot cities. To date, three batches of low-carbon pilot cities have been implemented in China, bringing the total number of such cities to 81 26 .

However, the report “China’s Digital Infrastructure Decarburization Path: Data Centers and 5G Carbon Reduction Potential and Challenges (2020–2035)” indicates that compared to peak carbon emissions expected around 2025 in key sectors like steel, building materials, and non-ferrous metals in China, the “lock-in effect” of carbon emissions from digital infrastructure poses a significant challenge to achieving China’s peak carbon and carbon neutrality goals 27 , 28 , 29 . Given the urgency of global climate change, it raises the question of the correlation between smart cities and low-carbon cities: is it positive, negative, or non-existent? Should the pace of smart city development be slowed to achieve sustainable urban development goals, considering the significant carbon dioxide emissions resulting from current technological choices, social habits, and policy frameworks? To address these practical issues, it is first essential to conduct an objective and accurate assessment of urban SCP and LCL. However, due to the complexity and diversity of urban carbon emissions sources, current measurement and estimation techniques fail to capture all emission types. This limitation hampers the ability to obtain comprehensive, accurate, and timely city-level carbon emission data 30 , 31 . To address this challenge, this paper decomposes smart cities and low-carbon cities into their interdependent and interactive subsystems (i.e., economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological) viewed through the lens of urban complex systems. It then develops evaluation models for both city types and conducts empirical analyses in 52 representative Chinese pilot cities. Based on these analyses, the paper elucidates the coupling coordination degree between SCP and LCL and proposes a specific pathway for their coordinated development.

This paper is therefore structured as follows: “ Literature review ” section offers an overview of the relevant literature, laying the foundation for the introduction of SCP and LCL. Subsequently, SCP and LCL are identified clearly, and measurement based on a mixed method for the coupling coordination degree is established in “ Methodology ” section, followed by a case demonstration for the introduced method in “ Results ” section and the demonstration results analysis in “ Discussions and implications ” section. Finally, “ Conclusions ” section summarizes the study’s main findings and contributions, discusses its limitations, and suggests directions for future research.

Literature review

Evaluation of smart city: contents, methods, and subjects.

The evaluation of smart cities is a central research area within the smart city development field. Developing standardized evaluation criteria serves the dual purpose of defining smart city development boundaries and scientifically measuring its effectiveness. This, in turn, facilitates the achievement of development goals centered on evaluation-driven construction, improvement, and management 32 . We conducted data collection on “smart city*” AND “evaluation”, resulting in the selection of 82 articles. This involved an extensive search of the Wos Core Collection database for articles published in the period from January 2019 to January 2024.

To facilitate a clearer understanding for readers of current research on smart city evaluation, we have categorized it by evaluation contents , evaluation methods , and evaluation subjects .

Cluster1-evaluation contents (what to evaluate), including smart city evaluation dimensions and indicators. By analyzing the article content, it’s clear that most smart city evaluation approaches align with six core dimensions: economy, quality of life, governance, people, mobility, and environment 13 , 15 . Centered around these six dimensions, international organizations (ISO, ETSI, UN, and ITU) and scholars have established various sets of smart city evaluation indicators, considering the interdependencies among urban economic, environmental, and social factors, all in alignment with the goals of sustainable urban development 32 , 33 , 34 . Notably, Sharifi 35 compiled a comprehensive list of indicators incorporating a wide range of assessment schemes. This list not only covers the scope of the evaluation indicators (project/community/city) and their data types (primary/secondary) but also considers the stages of smart city development (planning/operation) and stakeholder involvement 36 . Subsequent research predominantly utilizes the same criteria as Sharifi 35 to identify indicator sets, taking into account the specific needs of each city and defining the spatial and temporal scales of the indicator sets 37 .

Cluster 2-evaluation methods (How to evaluate) , including smart city evaluation methods and tools. Research in this field focuses on three main areas: identifying evaluation indicators for smart cities, computing composite index, and developing evaluation models 38 , 39 . Methods for indicator identification mainly include literature review, case studies, brainstorming, the Delphi method, and data-driven techniques 40 , 41 . The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is commonly used for calculating composite indices, yet it faces issues like subjective biases and data size limitations 42 . Alternative methods, such as the Analytical Network Process (ANP) and the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL), are used to address these drawbacks by simulating inter-indicator interactions. Additionally, techniques like Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) are applied for indicator weighting. Finally, smart city evaluation models are constructed to aggregate various dimensions and indicators into a unified score, facilitating project comparison and ranking, and highlighting areas needing improvement 43 , 44 .

Cluster 3-evaluation subjects (Who performs the evaluation) , including smart city stakeholders and participants. Smart city evaluations involve various stakeholders and participants. These complex processes see each entity, including government agencies, international organizations, academic institutions, industry sectors, and NGOs, contributing to the smart cities’ planning, development, and management 45 , 46 . Key organizations in this realm are the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), Smart Cities Council, European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT Urban Mobility), and World Council on City Data (WCCD). Additionally, numerous countries have established their own smart city evaluation standards to direct and review smart city progress 11 . Notable examples are the “One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City” in the USA, the “BSI PAS 180” in the UK, Singapore's “Smart Nation Initiative”, and China’s “National New-type Smart City Evaluation Indicator System”.

Evaluation of low-carbon city: contents, methods, and subjects

As more countries integrate low-carbon city development into their national strategies and plans, conducting scientific evaluations of cities’ current low-carbon development levels to encourage them to adopt corresponding measures for improvement has become a key strategy in advancing cities towards a low-carbon future 47 . In the Wos Core Collection database, we conducted a search for studies spanning January 2018 to January 2023 with “low-carbon city*” AND “evaluation” as keywords, subsequently identifying 98 pertinent articles through two rounds of screening.

This section, maintaining the research framework of “ Evaluation of smart city: contents, methods, and subjects ” section ( evaluation contents, methods, and subjects ), organizes low-carbon city research to enable comparison with smart city evaluations.

Cluster 1-evaluation contents (what to evaluate), including low-carbon city evaluation systems, dimensions, and indicators. Current research focusing on low-carbon cities primarily spans six key domains: urban low-carbon scale, energy, behavior, policy, mobility, and carbon sinks. The evaluation dimensions for low-carbon cities are mainly divided into two types: single-criterion systems concentrating on specific low-carbon aspects (such as low-carbon economy, low-carbon energy, etc.), and comprehensive multi-criteria systems assessing the overall urban low-carbon development 48 , 49 . Compared to single-criterion evaluation systems, comprehensive and multi-criteria evaluation systems are increasingly gaining attention from scholars. These scholars share the view that low-carbon city construction is a diverse, dynamic, interconnected process that requires comprehensive consideration of various urban aspects, including economy, society, and environment, and involves coordinating the actions of different stakeholders to achieve sustainable urban development 50 , 51 . Additionally, international institutions and many national governments have also published low-carbon city evaluation frameworks from the perspective of comprehensive and multi-criteria evaluation systems. The most notable examples include the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, which set 30 indicators from four dimensions: social, environmental, economic, and institutional, to evaluate the level of urban low-carbon development. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences proposed the “China Low Carbon City Indicator System”, covering 8 dimensions such as economy, energy, facilities, and 25 specific indicators including energy intensity, per capita carbon emissions, and forest coverage rate.

Cluster 2-evaluation methods (How to evaluate) , including low-carbon city evaluation methods and tools. Firstly, identifying evaluation indicators as the initial step in constructing a low-carbon city evaluation model, current research methods not only include traditional methods like literature review and expert interviews but also increasingly involve scholars using dynamic perspectives based on urban complex systems, applying models like DPSR (Driving forces-Pressures-State-Response), STIRPA (Stochastic Impacts by Regression on Population, Affluence, and Technology), the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC), and STEEP (Social, Technological, Economic, Ecological, and Political) for indicator identification 52 , 53 . Secondly, weighting evaluation indicators, an essential part of model construction, typically involves methods like subjective weighting (expert scoring, Delphi method, AHP) 54 , objective weighting (PCA, Entropy weight method, variance analysis), and combined weighting (DEA) 55 . Each method has its characteristics and suitable scenarios and should be selected according to specific circumstances. Additionally, quantitative assessment of regional carbon emissions using methods like carbon footprint analysis, baseline emission comparison, and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is also becoming a research focus 56 .

Cluster 3-evaluation subjects (Who performs the evaluation) , including low-carbon city stakeholders and participants. The evaluation of low-carbon cities also involves multiple stakeholders (government, enterprises, residents, etc.) 57 . Among them, international organizations like the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International Energy Agency (IEA), and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) have played significant roles in establishing low-carbon city evaluation standards and promoting global low-carbon city development. Additionally, due to economic, policy, and perception factors, current low-carbon city construction relies primarily on government financial input, with social capital and public participation in low-carbon city construction noticeably lacking 58 . Therefore, how to enhance the awareness of enterprises and residents as main actors in low-carbon city construction has become a current research focus.

Coupling coordination analysis between SCP and LCL

Smart cities and low-carbon cities, as important urban development models for the future, have seen an increasing focus on their interrelation by scholars in recent years, becoming an emerging research hotspot in the field. In the Wos Core Collection database, we searched for studies from January 2018 to January 2024 using the keywords “smart city*” “low-carbon city*” “correlation analysis” “coupling coordination analysis” and “urban sustainability”. After two rounds of screening, 24 related studies were selected for analysis.

From the perspective of research results, the current research conclusions about the correlation between low-carbon cities and smart cities primarily include two main points: (i) SCP and LCL cannot achieve coupling coordination development. Some scholars argue that SCP and LCL differ in their focus: SCP emphasizes urban technological and economic development, while LCL focuses more on urban ecological construction 17 . Particularly, De Jong identified 12 urban development concepts, including smart city, low-carbon city, eco-city, and green city. He believes that a clear distinction must be made in the conceptual definition of these types of cities to more accurately guide future urban planning 59 . Furthermore, some scholars argue that the relationship between SMC and LCC is negatively correlated. Deakin believes that the direct environmental benefits of IoT technology are insufficient to achieve urban sustainability goals 60 . Barr et al. argue that the logic of smart cities often leads city administrations to prioritize superficial changes and promote individual behavioral shifts, detracting from the crucial task of reconfiguring urban infrastructure for low-carbon lifestyles 61 , 62 . (ii) SCP and LCL can achieve coupling coordination development. Some scholars believe there is a positive correlation between SCP and LCL, with SCP potentially promoting the development of LCL. Specifically, the intelligent systems built by SCP can effectively match urban energy supply and demand, reducing urban carbon emissions, such as through smart grids and intelligent transportation networks 18 . It is worth noting that most of the studies on the coupling coordination relationship between urban SCP and LCL are based on perspectives of individual urban subsystems such as technology, economy, management, industrial structure, and society. They lack a comprehensive consideration of the city as a complex system 59 , 61 , 63 .

From the perspective of research methodologies, coupling coordination analysis is a fundamental statistical approach for examining relationships between two or more variables. This analysis typically employs techniques such as Pearson’s correlation coefficient, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, Kendall’s tau, partial correlation, point-biserial correlation, and multiple correlations. Each technique offers unique insights into the nature and strength of the interdependencies among variables 61 . The selection of an appropriate method depends on the data type (continuous, ordinal, or categorical), its distribution (e.g., normal distribution), and the specific objectives of the research.

In summary, although existing research has made significant contributions to the independent evaluation and advancement of smart cities and low-carbon cities, including their relevant construction content, main actors, as well as some specific measures such as empowering cities with data intelligence for low-carbon economic development and transitioning industrial structure to low-carbon, there are still some important knowledge gaps. On the one hand, current research primarily analyzes the coupling coordination relationship between urban SCP and LCL from the micro-perspective of individual urban subsystems such as economic and energy systems. This approach lacks a macroscopic perspective from the complex urban system, which is detrimental to the comprehensive development of cities 60 , 64 , 65 . On the other hand, current studies often only conduct basic qualitative comparisons of the relationship between the development levels of urban SCP and LCL from a quantitative or qualitative perspective. They lack a comprehensive analytical approach that integrates both qualitative and quantitative analyses for further exploration of the coupling coordination relationship between urban SCP and LCL. This shortfall hinders the sustainable development of cities.

To fill these knowledge gaps, this study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative analyses, to examine the model of coupling coordination between urban SCP and LCL. It also develops recommendations to enhance this coupling coordination, aiming to support sustainable development goals. Furthermore, this research selects 52 typical low-carbon and smart pilot cities in China as case studies, ensuring both scientific validity and practical applicability of the findings. Additionally, to enhance the logical coherence and readability of this study, we posit that a coupling coordination relationship exists between urban SCP and LCL and thus propose Hypothesis 1 .

Hypothesis 1

There is a substantial degree of coupling coordination between the overall urban system’s SCP and LCL, yet there are disparities in this coordination degree among the subsystems of economy, society, politics, culture, and ecology.

Methodology

Research framework.

The construction of low-carbon and smart cities, as key pathways to urban sustainability, necessitates examining their interplay and fostering their collaborative development for achieving sustainability goals 66 . This research employs a sequential framework, including Conceptual, Data, Analysis, and Decision-making Layers, to methodically explore the coupling coordination relationship between SCP and LCL, with the framework illustrated in Fig.  1 .

Research framework.

Firstly , in the Conceptual Layer, this study aligns with the United Nations’ objectives for sustainable cities, encompassing economic growth, social equity, better life conditions, and improved urban environments. Integrating these with China’s “Five-Sphere Integrated Plan (economy, politics, culture, society, and ecological environment construction)” for urban development, the research dissects the components of smart city systems (such as information infrastructure, information security, public welfare services) and low-carbon city systems (including low-carbon construction, transportation, and industry), with the aim to collect indicators. Secondly , in the Data Layer, this research develops smart city and low-carbon city evaluation systems, grounded in national standards and official statistics, to qualitatively examine the correlation between SCP and LCL from a macro perspective. Thirdly, in the Analysis Layer, this study selects 52 cities, both smart and low-carbon pilot cities in China, as samples for quantitative analysis. The process involves standardizing indicators, scoring and ranking the cities based on their smart performance and low-carbon levels, followed by employing Pearson’s correlation coefficient and coupling coordination degree model to scientifically analyze the correlation between SCP and LCL. Finally, in the Decision-making Layer, the study examines the coupling coordination relationship between urban smart performance, the overall low-carbon level, and the low-carbon level across five dimensions, which is key for us to test Hypothesis 1 . It also formulates development paths for the coupling coordination of smart and low-carbon cities.

SCP index system construction

Since the concept of smart cities was introduced in 2008, many national governments have established smart city evaluation standards. Due to varying national conditions, SCP evaluation indicators differ across countries. As the sample cities in this study are Chinese smart pilot cities, the selection of SCP evaluation indicators primarily references relevant Chinese national standards. As a global pioneer in smart city development, China released the “Evaluation indicators for new-type smart cities (GB/T 33356-2016)” in 2016 and revised it in 2022. This national standard, with its evaluative indicators, clearly defines the key construction content and development direction of new smart cities, aiming to specifically enhance the effectiveness and level of smart city construction, gaining significant recognition within the industry.

This study, grounded in the concept of a city’s “Five-in-One” sustainable development, is guided by three principles of “Inclusive well-being & Ecological harmony”, “Digital space & Physical space”, and “New IT technologies & Comprehensive services”. It also adheres to the “people-oriented concept” and adopts an “urban complex dynamic perspective” in the process of smart city construction. Additionally, it follows the principle of “similar attributes of evaluation objects”. Based on these foundations, the study establishes three criteria for selecting evaluation indicators, including scientific, coordination, and representation. Drawing on the Chinese government’s smart city evaluation standards and utilizing a literature review methodology, this research constructs an SCP evaluation indicator system for cities, as detailed in Supplementary Appendix Table A1 . The SCP index system includes six primary indicators, including smart public service (SPE), precise governance (PG), information infrastructure (II), digital economy (DE), innovative development environment (IDE), and citizen satisfaction (SCS). It also features 24 secondary indicators, such as traffic information services, grassroots smart governance, and spatio-temporal information platforms. Importantly, to explore the correlation between smart cities and low-carbon cities more effectively, the study deliberately omits “Internet + Green Ecology” related indicators from the smart city evaluation system. To ensure the accuracy and representativeness of these indicators, they were validated through expert consultation, public participation, and comprehensive statistical methods.

LCL index system construction

Current international organizations and academic perspectives on low-carbon city evaluation systems are predominantly based on the urban complex systems approach, considering the interplay and interaction of aspects such as low-carbon society, economy, and technology. Consistent with the principles for selecting SCP evaluation indicators, the choice of LCL evaluation indicators in this study primarily adheres to relevant Chinese national standards and related literature.

As a proactive practitioner in global low-carbon city development, in 2021, the Chinese government released the “Sustainable Cities and Communities—Guides for low-carbon development evaluation (GB/T 41152-2021)”. This national standard evaluates the level of urban low-carbon development, clarifying the key directions for such development, and serves as a current guide for low-carbon city construction in China. Thus, this study, grounded in the “Five-in-One” sustainable urban development framework and guided by the principles of “carbon reduction & pollution reduction”, “green economic growth”, and “enhanced carbon sequestration capacity”, combines the previously established principles of scientific, coordination, and representative for selecting evaluation indicators. It establishes an LCL index system based on the Chinese government’s evaluation standards and relevant literature. Specifically, the LCL evaluation index system constructed in this study includes five primary indicators, including low-carbon economic (LCE), low-carbon society (LCS), low-carbon environmental quality (LCEQ), low-carbon management (LCM), and low-carbon culture (LCC), as well as 22 secondary indicators such as energy consumption per unit of GDP and carbon emission intensity, as shown in Supplementary Appendix Table A2 . Similarly, to ensure the accuracy and representativeness of the indicators, the specific indicators were validated through expert consultation, public participation, and comprehensive statistical methods.

Analysis model construction

In this study, an Entropy-TOPSIS-Pearson correlation-Coupling coordination degree (ETPC) analysis model is constructed to quantitatively analyze the coupling coordination relationship between Urban SCP and LCL. The entropy method is first applied for objective weighting of evaluation indices, ensuring data objectivity and reducing subjective bias, thus enhancing the model’s accuracy and fairness. Next, the TOPSIS method is used to rank sample cities based on their smart performance and low-carbon levels, providing a straightforward and intuitive ranking mechanism. The Pearson correlation method then examines the correlation between SCP and LCL, offering data-driven insights into the dynamic relationships between these variables. Finally, the coupling coordination model calculates the degree of coordination between SCP and LCL, providing a theoretical basis for subsequent enhancement pathways and policy recommendations. The ETPC model constructed in this study has several advantages and complementarities, allowing for a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the research question from various perspectives. Additionally, the ETPC model can be broadly applied to other multidimensional evaluation and decision analysis issues, such as the coupling coordination between various public health interventions and community health levels, and the comprehensive effects of different economic policies on regional economic development and environmental impact. Specific analysis steps are outlined as follows.

Step 1: Conduct the data normalization process.

where x ij and y ij represent respectively the original and standardized value for the indicator j in referring to the sample case i ( i  = 1,2,3,…, m; j  = 1,2,3,…, n ), max (x j ) and min (x j ) denote respectively the largest and smallest value among all m samples for the indicator j , P ij represents the value proportion of indicator j in the sample case i to the summation value of the indicator from all cases.

Step 2: Calculate the weight and measure the comprehensive level based on entropy method.

The entropy weight method, an objective approach deriving weights from sample characteristics, mitigates expert bias, enhancing the objectivity and credibility of indicator weighting 67 . This study employs this method, determining weights through the calculation of each indicator’s information entropy, and measure the comprehensive level of the subsystem.

where m is the total number of sample cases, \({e}_{j}\) demonstrates the entropy value of the j indicator and \({\omega }_{j}\) denotes the weight of indicator j , and V represent the comprehensive level.

Step 3: Conduct a ranking of evaluation objects based on TOPSIS method.

A key limitation of the entropy method is its tendency to neglect the significance of indicators. The TOPSIS method, addressing this issue, is an ideal-solution-based ranking technique that aids in multi-objective decision-making among finite options 68 . In this approach, the study first determines positive and negative ideal solutions, measures each objective’s distance to these ideals, and subsequently ranks the subjects by the proximity of each objective to the ideal solution.

where \({ V}^{+}\) and \({V}^{-}\) respectively represent the best ideal solution and the worst ideal solution, \({D}_{i}^{+}\) and \({D}_{i}^{-}\) represent the distances from the objective to the positive and negative ideal solutions, respectively. \({C}_{i}\) indicates the closeness of the evaluation objective to the optimal solution, with \({C}_{i}\in \left[\text{0,1}\right]\) . A larger \({C}_{i}\) value suggests stronger smart and low-carbon development capabilities of the sample city.

Step 4: Analyze the correlation based on Pearson correlation method.

The Pearson correlation method is commonly used to measure the correlation coefficient between two continuous random variables, thereby assessing the degree of correlation between them 69 . In this study, based on the results from Steps 1–3, two sets of data are obtained representing the smart development level and low-carbon development level of sample cities, \(A:\left\{{A}_{1},{A}_{2},\dots ,{A}_{n}\right\}\) and \(B:\left\{{B}_{1},{B}_{2},\dots ,{B}_{n}\right\}\) . The overall means and covariance of both data sets are calculated, resulting in the Pearson correlation coefficient between the two variables.

where \({A}_{i}\) and \({B}_{i}\) respectively represent the SCP and LCL of sample cities. \(E\left(A\right)\) and \(E\left(B\right)\) are the overall means of the two data sets, \({\sigma }_{A}\text{ and }{\sigma }_{B}\) are their respective standard deviations, \(cov(A,B)\) is the covariance, and \({\rho }_{AB}\) is the Pearson correlation coefficient. When the correlation coefficient approaches 0, the relationship weakens, as it nears − 1 or + 1, the correlation strengthens.

Step 5: Analyze the coupling coordination degree based on the coupling coordination model.

The coupling coordination degree characterizes the level of interaction between different systems and serves as a scientific model for measuring the coordinated development level of multiple subsystems or elements 70 . This study has developed a model to measure the coupling coordination degree between two systems.

where C defines the coupling degree, \({f}_{1}\) and \({f}_{2}\) are the evaluation values of SCP and LCL respectively. CPD represents the coupling coordination degree. \(\alpha\) , \(\beta\) are the coefficient to be determined, indicating the importance of the systems. This study assumes that each system is equally important. Thus \(\alpha =\beta =1/2.\)

In this study, building upon the framework established by a preceding study, a classification system for the coupling coordination degree was developed. This system delineates the various types of coupling-coordinated development among SCP, LCL, LCS, LCM, LCEQ, and LCC. Current research on the division of coupling coordination degree intervals often uses an average distribution within the [0, 1] range 70 . However, due to the large sample size and the wide distribution range of coupling coordination degrees in this study, we have categorized these types into ten distinct levels based on their rank, as detailed in Table 1 .

Selection of sample cities and data collection

The Chinese government has prioritized the development of smart and low-carbon cities. Since 2010, it has launched 290 smart city pilots and 81 low-carbon city pilots across various regions, reflecting different levels of development, resource allocations, and operational foundations. To maintain the scientific integrity of our study, we established stringent criteria for selecting sample cities: (i) each city must be concurrently identified as both a smart and a low-carbon city pilot, and (ii) their government agencies must have issued data on key performance indicators for these initiatives. Following these criteria, our research has ultimately selected 52 cities as samples, as detailed in Fig.  2 . It is noteworthy that these 52 typical case cities are almost all provincial capitals in China, mostly located within the Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta, Jingjinji (Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei), and Western Triangle economic regions. Additionally, according to the “Globalization and World Cities Research Network (GaWC) World Cities Roster 2022 (GaWC2022)”, these cities are ranked within the top 200 globally. Therefore, given the scope of this research, these case cities offer significant representativeness and can serve as valuable models for promoting development in other urban areas. The data for this paper were sourced from the “China Low-Carbon Yearbook (2010–2023)”, the “China Environmental Statistics Yearbook (2010–2023)”, and low-carbon city data published by the governments of the sample cities. Additionally, this study addressed any missing data by averaging the data from adjacent years and applying exponential smoothing.

52 sample cities and their geographic locations.

Weighting values between evaluation indicators

The entropy weighting values between the 20 indicators of SCP and the 19 indicators of LCL are calculated by applying the data described in “ Weighting values between evaluation indicators ” section to formula ( 1 )–( 5 ), and the results are shown in Supplementary Appendix Tables A3 and A4 . Specifically, within the SCP evaluation framework, SPE and II are assigned the highest weights, while LCS and LCM are allocated the highest weights within the LCL evaluation framework. Conversely, SCS and LCC have attributed the lowest weights in their respective contexts.

Evaluation of SCP and LCL in sample cities

Utilizing the data from “ Selection of sample cities and data collection ” section and the weighting values derived in “ Weighting values between evaluation indicators ” section, we can determine the SCP and LCL of sample cities using the TOPSIS method, as outlined in formulas ( 6 )–( 9 ). The results are illustrated in Supplementary Appendix Table A5 and Fig.  3 . In this study, the value of the closeness coefficient (C i ) is used to indicate the relative closeness of a particular sample city to the negative ideal point 71 . The negative ideal point represents the worst solution of the ideal, where the individual attribute values reach their worst in each alternative. Therefore, a larger value of closeness indicates better smart city performance or a lower carbon level of a sample city 72 . C LCL and C SCP respectively represent the low-carbon level closeness coefficient and the smart city performance closeness coefficient. In referring to Supplementary Appendix Table A5 , the best three cities of SCP are Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Hangzhou, whilst the worst three cities are Yan’an, Jincheng, and Xining. Furthermore, Chengdu, Qingdao, and Beijing are the best there low-carbon level performers. Whilst Jincheng, Urumqi, and Huhehaote are the three worst.

TOPSIS-based analysis of SCP with LCL in 52 sample cities.

In referencing Fig.  3 , this study considers SCP data of sample cities as the control variable and ranks them in ascending order based on TOPSIS results. We then examine changes in LCL data to ascertain the correlation between these variables, yielding two key research conclusions: on one hand, analysis of 52 sample cities demonstrates a general ascending trend in both SCP and LCL data curves. This trend suggests a positive correlation between these two parameters. On the other hand, the LCL data, in contrast to the consistent rise in SCP, exhibits notable fluctuations and wider dispersion. This indicates that the positive correlation between SCP and LCL, while present, is not markedly robust.

Correlation results of SCP and LCL in sample cities

Correlation analysis of urban SCP and overall-LCL. This analysis employs the closeness coefficient (C i ) to assess SCP and overall-LCL in sample cities for Hypothesis 1 in Eqs. ( 10 ) and ( 11 ). The results are presented in Table 2 . Additionally, a linear regression analysis is conducted to determine the presence and magnitude of the relationship between SCP and LCL in these cities, as shown in Fig.  4 .

The scatter and regression of SCP and LCL: ( A ) SCP & Overall-LCL; ( B ) SCP & LCM; ( C ) SCP & LCS; ( D ) SCP & LCE; ( E ) SCP & LCQE; ( F ) SCP & LCC.

Considering the closeness coefficient range, correlation is categorized into five levels: very weak ( \(\left|{\rho }_{AB}\right|<0\) .1), weak ( \(0.1\le \left|{\rho }_{AB}\right|<0\) .3), moderate ( \(0.3\le \left|{\rho }_{AB}\right|<0\) .5), strong ( \(0.5\le \left|{\rho }_{AB}\right|<0\) .7), and very strong ( \(0.7\le \left|{\rho }_{AB}\right|<1.0\) ) 73 . Table 1 indicates a strong positive correlation between SCP and overall LCL. Linear regression analysis in Fig.  4 A demonstrates a significant correlation between SCP and urban LCL ( R 2  = 0.42, p  < 0.001), with notable differences exist among cities, consistent with Hypothesis 1 .

Correlation analysis of SCP and each low-carbon dimension. Pearson correlation analysis effectively measures the strength of linear relationships between two variables, but it does not identify causal relationships between them. To address this limitation and explore the interaction between the two variables, this study sets and solves the closeness coefficient for each low-carbon dimension, which are low-carbon economy (C LCE ), low-carbon society (C LCS ), low-carbon environmental quality (C LCEQ ), low-carbon management (C LCM ), and low-carbon culture (C LCC ). It then calculates the correlation analysis results for SCP and each low-carbon dimension for Hypothesis 1 , as shown in Table 1 . Furthermore, the results of the linear regression analysis are presented in Fig.  4 .

In detail, strong correlations exist between SCP and LCM, LCS, and LCEQ. The correlation is moderate with LCE and weak with LCC. Furthermore, linear regression analysis shows that the links between SCP and low-carbon levels across five dimensions are significant with minimal variance. Cities with higher SCP typically show higher values in LCM ( R 2  = 0.38, p  = 0.000), LCS ( R 2  = 0.35, p  = 0.000), and LCE ( R 2  = 0.32, p  = 0.000) as depicted in Fig.  4 B–D. However, this trend is less pronounced in LCEQ ( R 2  = 0.17, p  = 0.000) and LCC ( R 2  = 0.06, p  = 0.001), which exhibit greater dispersion as shown in Fig.  4 E,F. The lower R 2 values for LCEQ and LCC compared to other dimensions suggest a greater influence of factors not included in the model. Furthermore, to ensure the credibility and reliability of the research findings, this study conducted a sensitivity analysis by identifying and removing outliers from the sample dataset using the Z-score method, in addition to the previously mentioned Pearson correlation analysis. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the original dataset of city SCP and LCL is 0.65, with a significant P-value. After removing the outliers, the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.61, and the P-value remained significant. Therefore, the correlation between city SCP and LCL proposed in Research Hypothesis 1 is robust.

Coupling coordination degree of SCP and LCL in sample cities

The degree of coupling coordination comprehensively considers multiple aspects of urban complex systems, including economic, social, and environmental dimensions. By systematically evaluating the coordinated development level of urban SCP and LCL, this approach enables the analysis of the coupling and coordination relationships between SCP and LCL, as well as among various subsystems such as LCM, LCS, LCE, LCEQ, and LCC. This reveals the dynamic interactions and causality between SCP and LCL within urban complex systems. The coupling coordination degrees of SCP and LCL, along with their subsystems, in 52 typical smart and low-carbon pilot cities in China, are illustrated in Fig.  5 .

Coupled coordination degree of SCP and LCL, LCS, LCEQ, LCE, LCM, LCC.

Characteristics of objective changes in the coupled coordination degree between SCP and LCL. Based on the coupling coordination model and Eqs. ( 12 ) to ( 14 ), the coupling coordination degree of the urban complex system in SCP and LCL regions is calculated for Hypothesis 1 , as illustrated in Fig.  5 .

From the holistic perspective of urban complex systems, as the level of urban SCP continuously improves, the coupling coordination degree between SCP and LCL among 52 pilot cities in China shows an upward trend. This indicates that as the functional indices of urban SCP and LCL both strengthen, their interaction and coordination also enhance. Among these, Jincheng has the lowest coupled coordination degree at 0.5201, while Beijing boasts the highest at 0.8622. Within the 52 pilot cities, 5.78% exhibit a barely coupling coordination level, 51.93% display a primary coupling coordination level, 25% achieve an intermediate coupling coordination level, and 17.31% reach a good coupling coordination level. Moreover, the average coupling coordination degree of the 52 pilot cities is 0.598, suggesting that the SCP and LCL of the pilot cities can achieve coupled coordinated development.

Characteristics of objective changes in the coupled coordination degree among SCP, LCM, LCS, LCE, LCEQ, and LCC for Hypothesis 1 are illustrated in Fig.  5 .

From the perspective of urban subsystems, the coupling coordination degrees of LCS & SCP, LCE & SCP, and LCM & SCP all exhibit characteristics of steady fluctuations with an upward trend, while the coupling coordination degree of LCC & SCP shows greater volatility in its upward trend. The coupling coordination degree of LCEQ & SCP demonstrates a trend of initially rising and then declining. Furthermore, the average values of the coupling coordination degrees for LCS & SCP, LCE & SCP, LCM & SCP, LCEQ & SCP, and LCC & SCP are 0.478, 0.761, 0.779, 0.710, and 0.485, respectively. Among these, the pilot cities’ subsystems of LCE, LCM, and LCEQ with SCP exhibit an intermediate level of coupling coordination, while the coupling coordination degrees of LCS and LCC with SCP are on the verge of a dysfunctional recession. This indicates that the causal relationships between urban SCP and the subsystems of urban LCM, LCS, LCE, LCEQ, and LCC vary. Overall, Hypothesis 1 holds true both from the perspective of the city's overall system and from the perspective of its various subsystems.

Discussions and implications

Relationship between scp and lcl of different cities.

Considering the evaluation results of the urban SCP and LCL, four grades of the overall points can be classified, namely, excellent (0.7–1.0), average (0.5–0.7), below average (0.4–0.5), and poor (0–0.4). Subsequently, the sample cities in Supplementary Appendix Table A5 were classified based on these gradations. In the sample, cities with excellent SCP constitute 9.62%, about double the proportion with excellent LCL. Cities with average SCP account for 48.08%, whereas those at average LCL represent only 26.92%. Notably, cities with poor LCL comprise 26.92%, nearly triple the rate of those with poor SCP. The findings suggest that China’s SCP currently outperforms its low-carbon city initiatives, largely attributable to the rapid advancement of the Internet and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in recent years. What’s more, Fig.  4 illustrates that urban SCP significantly positively influences the urban LCL, though substantial variations exist among different cities. The relevant types can be summarized into the following four categories.

Quadrant I-high SCP and high LCL, including only six cities (Shenzhen, Shanghai, Beijing, Ningbo, Xiamen, and Qingdao). These cities are not only among China’s earliest smart city pilots but also recent focus areas for the government’s “Carbon Peak Pioneer Cities” initiative. By actively exploring innovative models, systems, and technologies for smart and low-carbon co-development, these cities provide valuable practical experiences for others. For instance, Shenzhen has developed a multi-level, multi-component greenhouse gas monitoring network and technology system for “carbon flux, carbon concentration, carbon emissions”, while Ningbo has constructed a “smart zero-carbon” comprehensive demonstration port area.

Quadrant II-poor SCP and poor LCL, numerous cities in Fig.  4 A, such as Jincheng, Lhasa, and Urumqi, exhibit poor SCP and LCL. Despite China having the most smart and low-carbon city pilots globally, its development level in these areas still lags significantly behind typical developed countries. While China’s infrastructure like networking and computing power has reached a certain scale, issues persist with insufficient integration and intensity in infrastructure construction and operation, as well as problems with aging infrastructure and low levels of intelligence. Furthermore, although China’s low-carbon pilot cities have made positive progress in promoting low-carbon development, most still have incomplete carbon emission statistical systems and inadequate operational mechanisms, leading to generally poor overall low-carbon development levels.

Quadrant III-high LCL but poor SCP, such as Kunming, Xining, and Guiyang. These cities possess resources conducive to low-carbon development, such as Kunming and Guiyang with their rich forest carbon sinks, and Xining with abundant clean energy sources like solar and wind power. However, they are mostly situated in China’s central and southwest areas with underdeveloped physical and economic conditions. Leveraging their abundant low-carbon resources, and utilizing big data and IoT technology, achieving sustainable green economic growth through carbon credits and trading markets, as well as green finance, represents a significant future development direction for these cities.

Quadrant IV-high SCP but poor LCL, including Suzhou, and Jinhua Zhongshan, decoupling economic development from carbon emissions presents a significant development challenge for these cities. Specifically, for Suzhou, one of the world’s largest industrial cities, the main challenge is achieving decarburization in the energy sector and transitioning high-emission manufacturing industries to low-carbon alternatives.

What’s more, as illustrated in Fig.  5 , the degree of interaction between SCP and LCL across the 52 pilot cities in China positively impacts the balanced and comprehensive performance of these cities. This, in turn, fosters the coordinated development of urban systems as a whole. Moreover, the continual increase in the coupled coordination degree between SCP and LCL with the enhancement of SCP in pilot cities indicates that smart city construction contributes to urban low-carbon development. Future urban development in China should fully leverage the industrial upgrading effect, carbon sequestration effect, and energy utilization effect of smart city construction. However, the increasing slope of the SCP & LCL coupled coordination degree curve in Fig.  5 suggests significant regional differences in the level of SCP & LCL coupled coordination development across Chinese cities. Smart city construction has a more pronounced decarburization effect in central and western cities, southern cities, non-environmentally focused cities, and resource-based cities, with cities in the northwest showing notably poorer levels of SCP & LCL coupled coordination development. This serves as a warning for future urban development in China.

Relationships between SCP and LCL in each urban subsystem

The relationship between urban SCP and LCL across five dimensions is illustrated in Fig.  4 B–F. There is a strong positive correlation between SCP and LCM, LCS, and LCE, while a moderate correlation is observed with LCEQ, and a weak correlation with LCC. Furthermore, the degree of coupling coordination between SCP and subsystems such as LCS, LCEQ, LCE, LCM, and LCC is examined in Fig.  5 . The results of the coupling coordination vividly illustrate the synergistic interactions and developmental harmony between urban SCP and various systems.

Among these, the coupling coordination degree curve fluctuation between SCP & LCM is stable, situated at an intermediate coupling coordination level, indicating the dominant role of the Chinese government in the construction of smart cities and low-carbon cities, as well as the effectiveness of policy implementation. However, this also suggests that in promoting urban smart and low-carbon construction, China faces the risk of adopting “one-size-fits-all” mandatory policies, neglecting to advance construction in phases with emphasis, tailored to the city's resource endowment and economic development status. The coupling coordination degree curve changes between SCP&LCE and SCP&LCL show the highest degree of fit, indicating that low-carbon economic development brought about by digital empowerment and upgrading of the urban industrial structure is a key driving factor for promoting the coupled coordination development of urban smart and low-carbon initiatives. Transforming traditional industrial structures and pursuing low-carbon upgrades of the economic structure present challenges for urban development in China today. The coupled coordination degree of SCP & LCS is on the verge of a dysfunctional recession, highlighting the imbalance in the development between China's SCP and LCS, especially in terms of new infrastructure construction, such as smart transportation and logistics facilities, smart energy systems, smart environmental resources facilities, etc. The current construction of new infrastructure in China is far from meeting the living needs of the broad masses of people.

It is noteworthy that with the continuous improvement of the SCP in sample cities, the coupling performance degree between SCP and LCEQ exhibits two phases: an initial stage of synergistic enhancement followed by a stage of diminished synergy. In the early phase of synergistic development, the SCP and LCEQ systems of cities, driven by shared goals of sustainable urban development, strategy adjustments, resource sharing, and technological progress, facilitated effective collaboration and integration between systems. However, upon reaching a certain stage, intensified resource competition, declining management efficiency, and environmental changes led to internal system fatigue, resulting in weakened synergy. This indicates that once the technological effects generated by smart city construction reach a certain level, it becomes crucial to enhance the city's capacity for autonomous innovation. Addressing the bottleneck issues of core technologies and transforming the development mode of smart low-carbon technology from “imitative innovation” represent significant breakthroughs for further promoting the coupled coordination of SCP and LCEQ in China’s future.

Moreover, as the SCP of sample cities continuously improves, the coupled coordination degree between SCP and LCC shows two phases: initial stable fluctuations and subsequent rapid growth. The turning point in the curve change occurs at a coupled coordination degree of 0.6, denoted as the primary coupling coordination point. Among these, the low-carbon awareness rate of urban residents, as a key indicator of LCC, shows that the majority of urban residents in China are still in the cognitive awakening stage regarding low-carbon consciousness. At this stage, residents begin to recognize the severity of climate change and environmental degradation, along with the importance of smart low-carbon lifestyles in mitigating these issues. The government continuously promotes this awareness through media reports, educational activities, official propaganda, and community initiatives. As residents gain a deeper understanding of the issues, their attitudes shift from initial indifference or skepticism to a stronger identification with and support for the values and concepts of smart low-carbon living. This shift encourages residents to experiment with new smart low-carbon lifestyles, gradually finding suitable smart low-carbon behavioral patterns that become habitual. Ultimately, when smart low-carbon lifestyles are fully internalized as part of residents’ values, they not only practice smart low-carbon living at the individual level but also actively participate in promoting society’s smart low-carbon construction. Therefore, this study posits that the emergence of the coupled coordination degree turning point between SCP and LCC is not only a process of individual behavioral change but also a reflection of social and cultural transformation. This process is time-consuming and influenced by multiple factors, including policy guidance, economic incentives, educational dissemination, and the social atmosphere.

Implications for promoting coupling coordination development between urban SCP and LCL

Low-carbon and smartness are vital features of modern, sustainable urban development and key supports for it. This study posits that urban low-carbon and smart development should not be disjointed but rather synergistic and complementary. To better achieve sustainable urban development goals, a model should be constructed with “low-carbon” as the cornerstone of sustainable development and “smartness” as the technological assurance for low-carbon growth. Specifically, this study proposes the “urban smart low-carbon co-development model”, which entails a deep integration of intelligent technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT) and big data with urban construction, governance services, and economic development. This model leverages digitalization to facilitate decarburization, thereby achieving urban sustainable development goals such as energy-efficient and green urbanization, ecological and livable environments, and streamlined governance services.

Furthermore, to better coordinate smart development with low-carbon city construction, enhance low-carbon city building through digitalization, and explore exemplary practices and models of smart low-carbon city construction, this study finds it necessary to establish an evaluation system for smart and low-carbon urban co-development. Therefore, based on the aforementioned urban SCP and LCL evaluation indicator system, this study initially conducted a literature review of past research, selecting 5 primary indicators and 20 secondary indicators from 48 articles to evaluate the degree of coupling coordination development between urban SCP and LCL. Subsequently, the Delphi method was employed to finalize the list of evaluation indicators, with 10 experts from various regions and diverse backgrounds in China refining the list and determining the weights of each indicator, as shown in Supplementary Appendix Table A6 . The final Smart Low-Carbon City Coupling Coordination Development Evaluation Indicator System, as presented in Table 3 , comprises 5 primary indicators and 18 secondary indicators. This evaluation system aims to emphasize the utilization of next-generation information technologies such as 5G, artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and blockchain to expand urban green ecological spaces, strengthen ecological environment governance, and enhance the level of intelligent urban governance, meeting the development needs of smart low-carbon cities.

The policy implications from the analysis results suggest that actions should be taken by government departments in China to reduce the uneven performance between urban SCP and LCL across various cities. These actions include, for example: Firstly, guiding the innovative development of urban SCP and LCL through policies, such as enhancing government digital services and administrative platforms, continuously promoting the development of emerging industries and the upgrading of traditional industries, and actively promoting green energy technologies. Secondly, categorizing and advancing the coordinated development of smart and low-carbon cities—comprehensive development should be pursued simultaneously in large cities in eastern and central China, while in smaller cities in western China, priorities should include enhancing urban innovation capabilities and improving infrastructure to lay a solid foundation for the coupled coordination of urban SCP and LCL. Thirdly, constructing a multi-stakeholder governance system to maximize the leading role of the government, the main role of enterprises, and the active participation of residents. By fostering a positive social atmosphere and cultural attributes, this will enhance the sense of participation and achievement among different social groups, creating a sustainable development model for urban SCP and LCL coordination. Lastly, emphasizing the development of SCP and LCL coordination in county-level cities is crucial. While large Chinese cities have already begun to form a pattern of coordinated SCP and LCL development, county-level cities, though with weaker infrastructures, possess tremendous potential. Focusing on low-carbon production, circulation, and consumption, and strengthening smart and low-carbon constructions in county-level cities will be a vital task for future urban development in China.

Conclusions

The global urbanization process brings opportunities for economic growth and social development, but also presents a series of challenges, such as environmental pressures and resource constraints 3 . The evaluation of urban SCP and LCL creates a link between the policy-making in urban resources environment management and the objectives of sustainable development goals (SDGs 11.4, 11.6, and 11.b) at the city level 74 . Currently, there is no unified consensus on the coupling coordination development between urban SCP and LCL. This study proposes a method combining qualitative and quantitative analysis from the perspective of urban complex systems to analyze the coupling coordination relationship between SCP and LCL. This new method clearly interprets a strong positive correlation between urban smart performance and the overall low-carbon level. Specifically, there are strong correlations between SMC and LCM, LCS, and LCE, with a moderate correlation to LCQE and a weak correlation with LCC. Several innovative insights for this method are highlighted: (i) sustainable development based on SCP and LCL assessment; (ii) emphasizing the “people-centric” concept in urban development; (iii) analyzing from the perspective of urban complex systems.

This study selected 52 typical smart and low-carbon pilot cities in China as sample cities to analyze the coupled coordination relationship between urban SCP and LCL. And the main findings from this analysis can be summarized as follows: (i) smart city initiatives outperform low-carbon city development, with notable differences in SCP and LCL effectiveness across eastern, central, and non-resource-based cities versus western, peripheral, and resource-dependent ones in China. (ii) A strong positive link between urban SCP and low-carbon levels, especially between SCP and LCM, LCS, and LCE, with moderate and weak correlations to LCEQ and LCC, respectively. (iii) An increasing urban SCP levels enhance the coupling coordination within the urban SCP and LCL system. SCP & LCE, SCP & LCM, and SCP & LCS subsystems align well with the overall system, driving the coupled coordination of urban SCP and LCL. In contrast, SCP & LCC and SCP & LCEQ have lesser alignment, affected by factors like technology, policy, economic incentives, education, and societal attitudes. Based on the evaluation results, this study posits that the development of urban low-carbon and smart initiatives should not be disjointed but rather synergistic and complementary. This study constructs an evaluation indicator system for the co-development of smart low-carbon cities aimed at better guiding the future coupling coordination development of smart and low-carbon cities.

The novelty of this study not only addresses the practical dilemma of obtaining comprehensive, accurate, and timely urban-level carbon emission data, a challenge due to existing measurement and estimation technologies being unable to capture all types of carbon emissions, but also assesses the urban SCP and LCL. Simultaneously, by combining qualitative and quantitative analysis methods, it fills the research gap on the nature of the coupled coordination relationship between urban SCP and LCL. Moreover, from the perspective of urban complex systems, this study dissects the urban low-carbon level into LCC, LC, LCE, LCEQ, and LCS, exploring their respective coupled coordination relationships with SCP. This clarifies the impact mechanism between SCP and LCL, providing a theoretical basis for smart low-carbon city co-development. The limitations of the study are also appreciated. Firstly, the study only selected a sample of cities in China, and the limited number of samples may not fully substantiate the research conclusions. Secondly, the indicator system constructed by this study is still not perfect, leading to certain inaccuracies in the evaluation results. In this regard, future studies are recommended to conduct a more comprehensive comparison analysis on the coupled coordination relationship between SCP and LCL at city, regional, and national levels, which would be beneficial in better guiding the practice of urban sustainability.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its Supplementary Information files].

Zheng, H. W., Shen, G. Q. & Wang, H. A review of recent studies on sustainable urban renewal. Habit. Int. 41 , 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.08.006 (2014).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bibri, S. E. & Krogstie, J. Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 31 , 183–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.016 (2017).

Article   Google Scholar  

Chen, M., Liu, W. & Lu, D. Challenges and the way forward in China’s new-type urbanization. Land Use Policy 55 , 334–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.025 (2016).

Liang, W. & Yang, M. Urbanization, economic growth and environmental pollution: Evidence from China. Sustain. Comput. Inform. Syst. 21 , 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suscom.2018.11.007 (2019).

Guan, X., Wei, H., Lu, S., Dai, Q. & Su, H. Assessment on the urbanization strategy in China: Achievements, challenges and reflections. Habit. Int. 71 , 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.11.009 (2018).

Wu, H., Hao, Y. & Weng, J.-H. How does energy consumption affect China’s urbanization? New evidence from dynamic threshold panel models. Energy Policy 127 , 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.057 (2019).

Liu, H., Cui, W. & Zhang, M. Exploring the causal relationship between urbanization and air pollution: Evidence from China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 80 , 783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103783 (2022).

Tang, F. et al. Spatio-temporal variation and coupling coordination relationship between urbanisation and habitat quality in the Grand Canal, China. Land Use Policy 117 , 6119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106119 (2022).

Kim, J. Smart city trends: A focus on 5 countries and 15 companies. Cities 123 , 551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103551 (2022).

Silva, B. N., Khan, M. & Han, K. Towards sustainable smart cities: A review of trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 38 , 697–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.053 (2018).

Yigitcanlar, T., Kankanamge, N. & Vella, K. How are smart city concepts and technologies perceived and utilized? A systematic geo-twitter analysis of smart cities in Australia. J. Urban Technol. 28 , 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2020.1753483 (2021).

Yigitcanlar, T. et al. Can cities become smart without being sustainable? A systematic review of the literature. Sustain. Cities Soc. 45 , 348–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.11.033 (2019).

Guo, Q. & Zhong, J. The effect of urban innovation performance of smart city construction policies: Evaluate by using a multiple period difference-in-differences model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 184 , 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122003 (2022).

Ismagilova, E., Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y. K. & Raman, K. R. Smart cities: Advances in research—An information systems perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 47 , 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.004 (2019).

Caragliu, A. & Del Bo, C. F. Smart innovative cities: The impact of Smart City policies on urban innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 142 , 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.022 (2019).

Yigitcanlar, T. et al. Understanding ‘smart cities’: Intertwining development drivers with desired outcomes in a multidimensional framework. Cities 81 , 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.04.003 (2018).

Liu, Z. et al. Decision optimization of low-carbon dual-channel supply chain of auto parts based on smart city architecture. Complexity 2020 , 5951. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2145951 (2020).

Guo, Q., Wang, Y. & Dong, X. Effects of smart city construction on energy saving and CO 2 emission reduction: Evidence from China. Appl. Energy 313 , 879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118879 (2022).

Cheng, J., Yi, J., Dai, S. & Xiong, Y. Can low-carbon city construction facilitate green growth? Evidence from China’s pilot low-carbon city initiative. J. Clean. Prod. 231 , 1158–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.327 (2019).

Sun, W. & Huang, C. Predictions of carbon emission intensity based on factor analysis and an improved extreme learning machine from the perspective of carbon emission efficiency. J. Clean. Prod. 338 , 414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130414 (2022).

Shi, B., Li, N., Gao, Q. & Li, G. Market incentives, carbon quota allocation and carbon emission reduction: Evidence from China’s carbon trading pilot policy. J. Environ. Manag. 319 , 650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115650 (2022).

Sun, L. et al. Carbon emission transfer strategies in supply chain with lag time of emission reduction technologies and low-carbon preference of consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 264 , 664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121664 (2020).

Matsumura, E. M., Prakash, R. & Vera-Munoz, S. C. Firm-value effects of carbon emissions and carbon disclosures. Acc. Rev. 89 , 695–724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50629 (2014).

Lv, M. & Bai, M. Evaluation of China’s carbon emission trading policy from corporate innovation. Financ. Res. Lett. 39 , 565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101565 (2021).

Jia, Z. & Lin, B. Rethinking the choice of carbon tax and carbon trading in China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 159 , 187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120187 (2020).

Huo, T., Xu, L., Liu, B., Cai, W. & Feng, W. China’s commercial building carbon emissions toward 2060: An integrated dynamic emission assessment model. Appl. Energy 325 , 828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119828 (2022).

Lin, B. & Huang, C. Analysis of emission reduction effects of carbon trading: Market mechanism or government intervention? Sustain. Prod. Consump. 33 , 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.06.016 (2022).

Zhang, M. & Liu, Y. Influence of digital finance and green technology innovation on China’s carbon emission efficiency: Empirical analysis based on spatial metrology. Sci. Total Environ. 838 , 463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156463 (2022).

Zhu, X. & Li, D. How to promote the construction of low-carbon cities in China? An urban complex ecosystem perspective. Sustain. Dev. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2897 (2024).

He, C., Zhang, D., Huang, Q. & Zhao, Y. Assessing the potential impacts of urban expansion on regional carbon storage by linking the LUSD-urban and InVEST models. Environ. Model. Softw. 75 , 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.09.015 (2016).

Nowak, D. J., Greenfield, E. J., Hoehn, R. E. & Lapoint, E. Carbon storage and sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States. Environ. Pollut. 178 , 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.03.019 (2013).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wang, T. et al. Mobility based trust evaluation for heterogeneous electric vehicles network in smart cities. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 22 , 1797–1806. https://doi.org/10.1109/tits.2020.2997377 (2021).

Huovila, A., Bosch, P. & Airaksinen, M. Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for Smart sustainable cities: What indicators and standards to use and when? Cities 89 , 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.029 (2019).

Nizetic, S., Djilali, N., Papadopoulos, A. & Rodrigues, J. J. P. C. Smart technologies for promotion of energy efficiency, utilization of sustainable resources and waste management. J. Clean. Prod. 231 , 565–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.397 (2019).

Sharifi, S., Saman, W. & Alemu, A. Identification of overheating in the top floors of energy-efficient multilevel dwellings. Energy Build. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109452 (2019).

Shafiq, M., Tian, Z., Sun, Y., Du, X. & Guizani, M. Selection of effective machine learning algorithm and Bot–IoT attacks traffic identification for internet of things in smart city. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. Int. J. Esci. 107 , 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2020.02.017 (2020).

Huang, S., Liu, A., Zhang, S., Wang, T. & Xiong, N. N. BD-VTE: A novel baseline data based verifiable trust evaluation scheme for smart network systems. IEEE Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng. 8 , 2087–2105. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnse.2020.3014455 (2021).

Reed, M. S. et al. Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework. Res. Policy 50 , 147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104147 (2021).

Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J. & Baskerville, R. FEDS: A framework for evaluation in design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 25 , 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.36 (2016).

Kristan, M. et al. A novel performance evaluation methodology for single-target trackers. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 38 , 2137–2155. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpami.2016.2516982 (2016).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Li, H. Research progress on evaluation methods and factors influencing shale brittleness: A review. Energy Rep. 8 , 4344–4358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.120 (2022).

Lyu, H.-M., Zhou, W.-H., Shen, S.-L. & Zhou, A.-N. Inundation risk assessment of metro system using AHP and TFN-AHP in Shenzhen. Sustain. Cities Soc. 56 , 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102103 (2020).

Buyukozkan, G. & Guleryuz, S. An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 182 , 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.09.015 (2016).

Ervural, B. C., Zaim, S., Demirel, O. F., Aydin, Z. & Delen, D. An ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS-based SWOT analysis for Turkey’s energy planning. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 , 1538–1550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.095 (2018).

Gao, Z. et al. EEG-based spatio-temporal convolutional neural network for driver fatigue evaluation. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 30 , 2755–2763. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnnls.2018.2886414 (2019).

Manzano, A. The craft of interviewing in realist evaluation. Evaluation 22 , 342–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389016638615 (2016).

Zeng, S., Jin, G., Tan, K. & Liu, X. Can low-carbon city construction reduce carbon intensity? Empirical evidence from low-carbon city pilot policy in China. J. Environ. Manag. 332 , 363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117363 (2023).

Liu, X., Li, Y., Chen, X. & Liu, J. Evaluation of low carbon city pilot policy effect on carbon abatement in China: An empirical evidence based on time-varying DID model. Cities 123 , 582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103582 (2022).

Tan, S. et al. A holistic low carbon city indicator framework for sustainable development. Appl. Energy 185 , 1919–1930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.041 (2017).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Shi, X. & Xu, Y. Evaluation of China’s pilot low-carbon city program: A perspective of industrial carbon emission efficiency. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 13 , 446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2022.101446 (2022).

Yang, S., Pan, Y. & Zeng, S. Decision making framework based Fermatean fuzzy integrated weighted distance and TOPSIS for green low-carbon port evaluation. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 114 , 5048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105048 (2022).

Fang, G., Gao, Z., Tian, L. & Fu, M. What drives urban carbon emission efficiency?—Spatial analysis based on nighttime light data. Appl. Energy 312 , 772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118772 (2022).

Yang, S., Jahanger, A. & Hossain, M. R. How effective has the low-carbon city pilot policy been as an environmental intervention in curbing pollution? Evidence from Chinese industrial enterprises. Energy Econ. 118 , 523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106523 (2023).

Huang, G., Li, D., Zhu, X. & Zhu, J. Influencing factors and their influencing mechanisms on urban resilience in China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 74 , 210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103210 (2021).

Li, W. et al. Carbon emission and economic development trade-offs for optimizing land-use allocation in the Yangtze River Delta, China. Ecol. Indic. 147 , 950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.109950 (2023).

Wu, H. et al. Exploring the impact of urban form on urban land use efficiency under low-carbon emission constraints: A case study in China’s Yellow River Basin. J. Environ. Manag. 311 , 866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114866 (2022).

Zhao, S. et al. Has China’s low-carbon strategy pushed forward the digital transformation of manufacturing enterprises? Evidence from the low-carbon city pilot policy. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 102 , 184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107184 (2023).

Pan, A., Zhang, W., Shi, X. & Dai, L. Climate policy and low-carbon innovation: Evidence from low-carbon city pilots in China. Energy Econ. 112 , 129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106129 (2022).

De Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C. & Weijnen, M. Sustainable-smart-resilient-low carbon-eco-knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. J. Clean. Prod. 109 , 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.004 (2015).

He, B.-J. et al. Co-benefits approach: Opportunities for implementing sponge city and urban heat island mitigation. Land Use Policy 86 , 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.05.003 (2019).

Nizetic, S., Solic, P., Lopez-de-Ipina, D. & Patrono, L. Internet of Things (IoT): Opportunities, issues and challenges towards a smart and sustainable future. J. Clean. Prod. 274 , 877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122877 (2020).

Abduljabbar, R. L., Liyanage, S. & Dia, H. The role of micro-mobility in shaping sustainable cities: A systematic literature review. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 92 , 734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102734 (2021).

Anh Tuan, H., Van Viet, P. & Xuan Phuong, N. Integrating renewable sources into energy system for smart city as a sagacious strategy towards clean and sustainable process. J. Clean. Prod. 305 , 7161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127161 (2021).

March, H. & Ribera-Fumaz, R. Smart contradictions: The politics of making Barcelona a self-sufficient city. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 23 , 816–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776414554488 (2016).

Yigitcanlar, T. & Lee, S. H. Korean ubiquitous-eco-city: A smart-sustainable urban form or a branding hoax? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 89 , 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.034 (2014).

Kumar, S., Sharma, D., Rao, S., Lim, W. M. & Mangla, S. K. Past, present, and future of sustainable finance: Insights from big data analytics through machine learning of scholarly research. Ann. Oper. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04410-8 (2022).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Li, Y., Gao, P., Tang, B., Yi, Y. & Zhang, J. Double feature extraction method of ship-radiated noise signal based on slope entropy and permutation entropy. Entropy 24 , 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/e24010022 (2022).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Zavadskas, E. K., Mardani, A., Turskis, Z., Jusoh, A. & Nor, K. M. D. Development of TOPSIS method to solve complicated decision-making problems: An overview on developments from 2000 to 2015. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Making 15 , 645–682. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622016300019 (2016).

Edelmann, D., Mori, T. F. & Szekely, G. J. On relationships between the Pearson and the distance correlation coefficients. Stat. Probab. Lett. 169 , 960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spl.2020.108960 (2021).

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Wang, S., Kong, W., Ren, L., Zhi, D. & Dai, B. Research on misuses and modification of coupling coordination degree model in China. J. Nat. Resour. 36 , 793–810 (2021).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Baak, M., Koopman, R., Snoek, H. & Klous, S. A new correlation coefficient between categorical, ordinal and interval variables with Pearson characteristics. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 152 , 7043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2020.107043 (2020).

Saadatmorad, M., Talookolaei, R.-A.J., Pashaei, M.-H., Khatir, S. & Wahab, M. A. Pearson correlation and discrete wavelet transform for crack identification in steel beams. Mathematics 10 , 689. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10152689 (2022).

De Winter, J. C. F., Gosling, S. D. & Potter, J. Comparing the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients across distributions and sample sizes: A tutorial using simulations and empirical data. Psychol. Methods 21 , 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000079 (2016).

Belz, F. M. & Binder, J. K. Sustainable entrepreneurship: A convergent process model. Bus. Strategy Environ. 26 , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1887 (2017).

Download references

The funding provided by Government of Jiangsu Province (BE2022606 and BM2022035).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Construction and Real Estate, School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210018, China

Xiongwei Zhu, Dezhi Li, Shenghua Zhou & Lugang Yu

Engineering Research Center of Building Equipment, Energy, and Environment, Ministry of Education, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210018, China

Department of Wood Science, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

X.Z: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing-original draft. D. L: supervision, project administration, funding acquisition. S. Z: writing-review & editing. S.Z: writing-review & editing. L.Y: data curation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dezhi Li .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary tables., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zhu, X., Li, D., Zhou, S. et al. Evaluating coupling coordination between urban smart performance and low-carbon level in China’s pilot cities with mixed methods. Sci Rep 14 , 20461 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-68417-4

Download citation

Received : 28 March 2024

Accepted : 23 July 2024

Published : 03 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-68417-4

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

• Smart city performance (SCP)
• Low-carbon level (LCL)
• ETPC analysis model
• Coupling coordination degree
• Smart low-carbon coupling coordination development paths

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

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

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.