Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Sustainable Management of Forest Ecosystems: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods provide a framework for addressing sustainable forest management challenges, especially under climate change. This study offers a systematic review of MCDM applications in forest management from January 2010 to March 2024. Descriptive statistics were employed to analyze trends in MCDM use and geographic distribution. Thematic content analysis investigated the appearance of MCDM indicators supplemented by Natural Language Processing (NLP). Factorial Correspondence Analysis (FCA) explored correlations between models and publication outlets. We systematically searched Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, CrossRef, and OpenAlex using terms such as ‘MCDM’, ‘forest management’, and ‘decision support’. We found that the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) were the most commonly used methods, followed by the Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE), the Analytic Network Process (ANP), GIS, and Goal Programming (GP). Adoption varied across regions, with advanced models such as AHP and GIS less frequently used in developing countries due to technological constraints. These findings highlight emerging trends and gaps in MCDM application, particularly for argan forests, emphasizing the need for context-specific frameworks to support sustainable management in the face of climate change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".