# The Sustainable Management of Land and Fisheries Resources Using Multicriteria Techniques: A Meta-Analysis

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

## 3. Results

## 4. Discussion

## 5. Conclusions

- Without considering the use of DEA, which is extensively deployed in the specific area of agriculture, the application of MCDM methods is somewhat similar in the three areas studied.
- The number of criteria included in the different applications is also similar in the three areas. However, it is important to note that the number of criteria considered is lower for continuous problems than for discrete ones. This could be explained by the fact that the computational complexity associated with the resolution of the continuous models considerably increases with the number of criteria considered.
- The criteria involved in decision-making modeling have to be normalized in all cases. This requirement is demanded independently of the field as well as of the MCDM method used.
- The choice of the particular MCDM method used is made, in most cases, in a somewhat arbitrary way. This type of mechanistic practice does not seem advisable. Thus, in general, the main features of the problem situation, to some extent, suggest the most suitable MCDM method to be used.
- The combined use of several MCDM methods for dealing with a specific problem was successfully applied. In this sense, the use of AHP for deriving the preferential weights and subsequently attaching them to a multicriteria optimization model is paradigmatic. Despite the wide use of the above case, the hybridization of MCDM methods is of current interest and seems to have many future developments.
- Modern democratic societies demand a participatory decision-making process for dealing with the management of natural resources. That is why the consideration of the preferential weights of different stakeholders with different perceptions with respect to the criteria considered is becoming of paramount importance.
- To deal successfully with the above crucial and challenging issue, it would seem useful to hybridize the MCDM methods with those approaches belonging to the GDM field. Although the published works following this orientation are currently very scant, it would appear to be a promising future line of work.
- The ecosystem services, climate change, and sustainability concepts have been recently incorporated as criteria in the management of the natural resources studied. Although the sustainability topic is widespread, the other orientations will seemingly be of key importance in future works in the field investigated. The same is expected of the term bioeconomy, whose popularity in academic spheres is even more recent.
- The merger of GIS and MCDM methods is dramatically increasing in forest management, although its use in agriculture and fisheries is fairly negligible. This fact might be explained by the importance of spatial dimension in forest management.

## Supplementary Materials

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A. Searches in WOS and Scopus

## References

- Kavadas, S.; Maina, I.; Damalas, D.; Dokos, I.; Pantazi, M.; Vassilopoulou, V. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis as a tool to extract fishing footprints and estimate fishing pressure: Application to small scale coastal fisheries and implications for management in the context of the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive. Mediterr. Mar. Sci.
**2015**, 16, 294–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Blagojević, B.; Jonsson, R.; Björheden, R.; Norsdtröm, E.-M.; Lindroos, O. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in forest operations—An introductional review. Croat. J. For. Eng.
**2019**, 40, 191–2015. [Google Scholar] - Memmah, M.M.; Lescourret, M.; Yao, X.; Lavigne, C. Metaheuristics for agricultural land use optimization. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.
**2015**, 35, 975–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Gomiero, T.; Pimentel, D.; Paoletti, M.G. Is there a need for a more sustainable agriculture? Crit. Rev. Plant Sci.
**2011**, 30, 6–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hayashi, K. Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: Methodology and application. Agric. Syst.
**1998**, 58, 483–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kaim, A.; Cord, A.F.; Volk, M. A review of multi-criteria optimization techniques for agricultural land use allocation. Environ. Model. Softw.
**2018**, 105, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Santos, A.; Carvalho, A.; Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P.; Marques, A.; Amorim, P. Assessment and optimization of sustainable forest wood supply chains—A systematic literature review. For. Policy Econ.
**2019**, 105, 112–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Andalecio, M.N. Multi-criteria decision models for management of tropical coastal fisheries. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.
**2010**, 30, 557–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Romero, C.; Rehman, T. Natural resource management and the use of multiple criteria decision-making techniques: A review. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.
**1987**, 14, 61–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Crutchfield, J.A. Economic and political objectives in fishery management. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
**1973**, 102, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Field, D.B. Goal programming for forest management. For. Sci.
**1973**, 19, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Romero, C.; Amador, F.; Barco, A. Multiple objectives in agricultural planning: A compromise programming application. Am. J. Agric. Econ.
**1987**, 69, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hayashi, K. Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: Acritical survey and future perspectives. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2000**, 122, 486–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Martins, H.; Borges, J.G. Addressing collaborative planning methods and tools in forest management. For. Ecol. Manag.
**2007**, 248, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Diaz-Balteiro, L.; Romero, C. Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: A review and an assessment. For. Ecol. Manag.
**2008**, 255, 3222–3241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Acosta, M.; Corral, S. Multicriteria decision analysis and participatory decision support systems in forest management. Forests
**2017**, 8, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ortiz-Urbina, E.; González-Pachón, J.; Diaz-Balteiro, L. Decision-making in forestry: A review of the hybridisation of multiple criteria and group decision-making methods. Forests
**2019**, 10, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Mardle, S.; Pascoe, S. A review of applications of multiple-criteria decision-making techniques to fisheries. Mar. Resour. Econ.
**1999**, 14, 41–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Deytieux, V.; Munier-Jolain, N.; Caneill, J. Assessing the sustainability of cropping systems in single- and multi-site studies. A review of methods. Eur. J. Agron.
**2016**, 72, 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Diaz-Balteiro, L.; González-Pachón, J.; Romero, C. Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2017**, 258, 607–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Stojčić, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Pamučar, D.; Stević, Z.; Mardani, A. Application of MCDM methods in sustainability engineering: A literature review. 2008–2018. Symmetry
**2019**, 11, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Herva, M.; Roca, E. Review of combined approaches and multi-criteria analysis for corporate environmental evaluation. J. Clean. Prod.
**2013**, 39, 355–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Diaz-Balteiro, L.; Belavenutti, P.; Ezquerro, M.; González-Pachón, J.; Nobre Ribeiro, S.; Romero, C. Measuring the sustainability of a natural system by using multi-criteria distance function methods: Some critical issues. J. Environ. Manag.
**2018**, 214, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Sadok, W.; Angevin, F.; Bergez, J.-E.; Bockstaller, C.; Colomb, B.; Guichard, L.; Reau, R.; Doré, T. Ex ante assessment of the sustainability of alternative cropping systems: Implications for using multi-criteria decision-aid methods. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.
**2008**, 328, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - De Luca, A.I.; Iofrida, N.; Leskinen, P.; Stillitano, T.; Falcone, G.; Strano, A.; Gulisano, G. Life cycle tools combined with multi-criteria and participatory methods for agricultural sustainability: Insights from a systematic and critical review. Sci. Total Environ.
**2017**, 595, 352–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Adrianto, L.; Matsuda, Y.; Yoshiaki, S. Assessing local sustainability of fisheries system: A multi-criteria participatory approach with the case of Yoron Island, Kagoshima prefecture, Japan. Mar. Policy
**2005**, 29, 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rossetto, M.; Bitetto, I.; Spedicato, M.T.; Lembo, G.; Gambino, M.; Accadia, P.; Melià, P. Multi-criteria decision-making for fisheries management: A case study of Mediterranean demersal fisheries. Mar. Policy
**2015**, 53, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Diaz-Balteiro, L.; Alfranca, O.; Bertomeu, M.; Ezquerro, M.; Giménez, J.C.; González-Pachón, J.; Romero, C. Using quantitative techniques to evaluate and explain the sustainability of forest plantations. Can. J. For. Res.
**2016**, 46, 1157–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Diaz-Balteiro, L.; Alfranca, O.; González-Pachón, J.; Romero, C. Ranking of industrial forest plantations in terms of sustainability: A multicriteria approach. J. Environ. Manag.
**2016**, 180, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ezquerro, M.; Pardos, M.; Diaz-Balteiro, L. Sustainability in forest management revisited using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Sustainability
**2019**, 11, 3645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.M.D.; Khalifah, Z.; Zakwan, N.; Valipour, A. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications—A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraz.
**2015**, 28, 516–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Broniewicz, E.; Ogrodnik, K. Multi-criteria analysis of transport infrastructure projects. Transp. Res. Part D
**2020**, 83, 102351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ishizaka, A.; Labib, A. Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst. Appl.
**2011**, 38, 14336–14345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Lewandowski, I. Bioeconomy: Shaping the Transition to a Sustainable, Biobased Economy; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Viaggi, D. The Bioeconomy: Delivering Sustainable Green Growth; CABI: Wallingford, England, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Kardung, M.; Wesseler, J. EU bio-based economy strategy. In EU Bioeconomy Economics and Policies; Dries, L., Heijman, W., Jongeneel, R., Purnhagen, K., Wesseler, J., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume II, pp. 277–292. [Google Scholar]
- Adriaanse, L.S.; Rensleigh, C. Comparing Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar from an environmental sciences perspective. S. Afr. J. Jnl. Libr. Inf. Sci.
**2011**, 77, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, Q.; Waltman, L. Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. J. Informetr.
**2016**, 10, 347–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Cavacini, A. What is the best database for computer science journal articles? Scientometrics
**2015**, 102, 2059–2071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dos Santos, P.H.; Neves, S.M.; Sant’Anna, D.O.; de Oliveira, C.H.; Carvalho, H.D. The analytic hierarchy process supporting decision making for sustainable development: An overview of applications. J. Clean. Prod.
**2019**, 212, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Romero, C.; Rehman, T. Multiple Criteria Analysis for Agricultural Decisions, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Kangas, A.; Kurttila, M.; Hujala, T.; Eyvindson, K.; Kangas, J. Decision Support for Forest Management, 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weintraub, A.; Romero, C.; Bjorndal, T.; Epstein, R. Handbook of Operations Research in Natural Resources; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S.; Pasurka, C.; Martins-Filho, C. On nonparametric estimation: With a focus on agriculture. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ.
**2013**, 5, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Iliyasu, A.; Mohamed, Z.A.; Ismail, M.M.; Abdullah, A.M.; Kamarudin, S.M.; Mazuki, H. A review of production frontier research in aquaculture (2001–2011). Aquac. Econ. Manag.
**2014**, 18, 221–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sowlati, T. Efficiency studies in forestry using data envelopment analysis. For. Prod. J.
**2005**, 55, 49–57. [Google Scholar] - Diaz-Balteiro, L.; González-Pachón, J.; Romero, C. Goal programming in forest management: Customizing models for the decision-maker’s preferences. Scand. J. Forest Res.
**2013**, 28, 166–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Riesgo, L.; Gallego-Ayala, J. Multicriteria Analysis of Olive Farms Sustainability: An Application of TOPSIS Models. In Handbook of Operations Research in Agriculture and the Agri-Food Industry; Plà-Aragonés, L.M., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 327–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, L.; Hailu, A. Identifying preferred management options: An integrated agent-based recreational fishing simulation model with an AHP-TOPSIS evaluation method. Ecol. Model.
**2013**, 249, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cohon, J.L. Multiobjective Programming and Planning; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Steuer, R. Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation, and Application; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, P.L. Multiple-Criteria Decision Making. Concepts, Techniques, and Extensions; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Zeleny, M. Multiple Criteria Decision Making; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Berbel, J.; Bournaris, T.; Manos, B.; Matsatsinis, N.; Viaggi, D. Multicriteria Analysis in Agriculture. Current Trends and Recent Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Schmoldt, D.L.; Kangas, J.; Mendoza, G.A.; Pesonen, M. The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making; Springer Science: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Jato-Espino, D.; Castillo-Lopez, E.; Rodriguez-Hernandez, J.; Canteras-Jordana, C. A review of application of multi-criteria decision making methods in construction. Autom. Constr.
**2014**, 45, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ibáñez-Forés, V.; Bove, M.D.; Pérez-Belis, V. A holistic review of applied methodologies for assessing and selecting the optimal technological alternative from a sustainability perspective. J. Clean. Prod.
**2014**, 70, 259–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Govindan, K.; Rajendran, S.; Sarkis, J.; Murugesan, P. Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod.
**2015**, 98, 66–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cegan, J.C.; Filion, A.M.; Keisler, J.M.; Linkov, I. Trends and applications of multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Literature review. Environ. Syst. Decis.
**2017**, 37, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Frini, A.; Benamor, S. Making decisions in a sustainable development context: A state-of-the-art survey and proposal of a multi-period single synthesizing criterion approach. Comput. Econ.
**2018**, 52, 341–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Huang, I.B.; Keisler, J.; Linkov, I. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Ten years of applications and trends. Sci. Total Environ.
**2011**, 409, 3578–3594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Malczewski, J.; Rinner, C. Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic Information Science; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bogdaz, A.; Yavuz, F.; Günay, A.S. AHP and GIS based land suitability analysis for Cihanbeyli (Turkey) County. Environ. Earth Sci.
**2016**, 75, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ramanathan, R.; Ganesh, L.S. Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**1994**, 79, 249–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Uhde, B.; Hahn, W.A.; Griess, V.C.; Knoke, T. Hybrid MCDA methods to integrate multiple ecosystem services in forest management planning: A critical review. Environ. Manag.
**2015**, 56, 373–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; López-Serrano, M.J.; Velasco-Muñoz, J.F. Forest ecosystem services: An analysis of worldwide research. Forests
**2018**, 9, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Agresti, A. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Howell, D.C. Statistical Methods for Psychology, 5th ed.; Wadsworth, Cengage Learning: Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Zyoud, S.H.; Fuchs-Hanusch, D. A bibliometric-based survey on AHP and TOPSIS techniques. Expert Syst. Appl.
**2017**, 78, 158–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nobre, S.; Eriksson, L.-O.; Trubins, R. The use of decision support systems in forest management: Analysis of FORSYS Country Reports. Forests
**2016**, 7, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Pollesch, N.L.; Dalle, V.H. Normalization in sustainability assessment: Methods and implications. Ecol. Econ.
**2016**, 130, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Romero, C. Handbook of Critical Issues in Goal Programming; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Kabir, G.; Sadiq, R.; Tesfamariam, S. A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng.
**2014**, 10, 1176–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Keenan, P.B.; Jankowski, P. Spatial Decision Support Systems: Three decades on. Decis. Support Syst.
**2019**, 116, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Evans, J.R. Sensitivity analysis in decision theory. Decis. Sci.
**1984**, 1, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Esmail, B.A.; Geneletti, D. Multi-criteria decision analysis for nature conservation: A review of 20 years of applications. Methods Ecol. Evol.
**2018**, 9, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Ezquerro, M.; Pardos, M.; Diaz-Balteiro, L. Operational research techniques used for addressing biodiversity objectives into forest management: An overview. Forests
**2016**, 7, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Mendes, A.B.; Soares da Silva, E.L.D.G.; Santos, J.M.A. Efficiency Measures in the Agricultural Sector; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Emrouznejad, A.; Yang, G. A survey and analysis of the first 40 years of scholarly literature in DEA: 1978–2016. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci.
**2018**, 61, 4–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Behzadian, M.; Kazemzadeh, R.B.; Albadvi, A.; Aghdasi, M. PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2010**, 200, 198–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Malczewski, J. Multiple criteria decision analysis and geographic information systems. In Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis; Ehrgott, M., Rui Figueira, J., Greco, S., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 369–395. [Google Scholar]
- Diaz-Balteiro, L.; González-Pachón, J.; Romero, C. Sustainability as a multi-criteria concept: New developments and applications. Sustainability
**2020**, 12, 7527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wesseler, J.; Jongeneel, R.; Purnhagen, K. Bioeconomy Economics and Policies. In EU Bioeconomy Economics and Policies: Volume I; Dries, L., Heijman, W., Jongeneel, R., Purnhagen, K., Wesseler, J., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 7–16. [Google Scholar]
- Zardari, Z.; Yusop, Z.; Shirazi, S.M.; Roslan, N.A.B. Prioritization of farmlands in a multicriteria irrigation water allocation: PROMETHEE and GAIA applications. Trans. ASABE
**2015**, 58, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 3.**Frequency of multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques. *TOPSIS: Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution; **PROMETHEE: Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations.

Number of papers analyzed | 628 | ||

Case study | |||

Agriculture | 323 | ||

Fisheries | 59 | ||

Forestry | 273 | ||

Number of countries | 87 | ||

Typology of journals | |||

Agriculture | 104 | ||

Fisheries | 36 | ||

Forestry | 128 | ||

Operations Research | 18 | ||

Multidisciplinary | 244 | ||

Other areas | 98 |

Justification of the MCDM method chosen | 45 | ||

Number of criteria | 97 | ||

Normalization of criteria | 314 | ||

Interaction with stakeholders | 278 | ||

Sensitivity analysis | 133 | ||

Method to assign weights to each criterion: | |||

Same vector of weights | 99 | ||

Implementation of a sensitivity analysis | 14 | ||

Requesting information from stakeholders | 89 | ||

Other | 238 | ||

Software used (specified by the authors) | 190 |

Statistical techniques | 225 | ||

Decision support systems (DSS) | 80 | ||

Nondeterministic | 98 | ||

GIS | 194 | ||

Sensitivity analysis | 133 |

Ecosystem services | 45 | ||

Climate change | 64 | ||

Multifunctionality/Multiple use | 59 | ||

Sustainability | 157 | ||

Bioeconomy | 9 | ||

Life cycle analysis | 20 |

Research Hypotheses | Method Used to Contrast the Hypothesis | Hypothesis Result |
---|---|---|

1. The application of the multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques does not significantly differ in the three fields (agriculture, forestry, and fisheries), given that we have not seen any comparative studies that support the opposite. | Pearson’s chi-squared and Fisher’s exact test | Rejected |

2. The number of criteria used in MCDM problems is similar in the three fields (agriculture, forestry, and fisheries). | ANOVA test | Accepted |

3. The number of criteria is lower in continuous problems than in discrete ones. | Welch’s two-sample t-test and ANOVA test | Accepted |

4. There seems to be a lesser use of MCDM techniques that apply to continuous problems than others that can only be applied to discrete ones. | Welch’s two-sample t-test | Accepted |

5. There is no relationship between the use of a particular MCDM technique and the fact that the case studies are from one or from several countries. | Multinomial logistic regression | Accepted |

6. The use in the same problem of several MCDM techniques simultaneously has increased over time. | Welch’s two-sample t-test and temporal analysis | Accepted |

7. (A) The criteria involved are usually normalized, independently of the field to be used. | Chi-squared and Fisher’s exact test | Accepted |

(B) The criteria involved are usually normalized, independently of the multicriteria technique to be used. | Chi-squared and Fisher’s exact test | Rejected |

8. (A) The justification of why the method is chosen is not usually given, whichever method is used. | Fisher’s exact Test | Rejected |

(B) The justification of why the method is chosen is not usually given, whichever area it is applied in. | Fisher’s exact Test | Accepted |

9. AHP and weighted MCDM always go together. | Logistic regression and chi-squared test | Rejected |

10. Given the inclusion of methods such as AHP and weighted MCDM in different GIS packages, it seems logical to point out that there is a positive relationship between the use of AHP and its application to spatial problems. | Logistic regression and chi-squared test | Accepted |

11. AHP is used mostly to obtain weights from a set of stakeholders and/or experts and apply these weights to solve the problem in question. | Logistic regression and chi-squared test | Accepted |

12. The hybridization of MCDM and GDM has increased over time. | Welch’s two-sample t-test and temporal analysis | Accepted |

13. Given the nature of forestry problems the hybridization of GDM and MCDM techniques would seem to be more frequent in forestry. | Chi-squared test | Accepted |

14. The concepts of ecosystem services, climate change, and sustainability are recent and have only become important in recent years. | Welch’s two-sample t-test and temporal analysis | Accepted |

15. The topics that have been included as being relevant are only relevant in the last year range of the period. | Welch’s two-sample t-test and temporal analysis | Rejected |

16. There is a higher probability of using GIS hybridized with some MCDM techniques in the forestry area than in other fields. | Logistic regression and chi-squared test | Accepted |

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Diaz-Balteiro, L.; Iglesias-Merchan, C.; Romero, C.; García de Jalón, S.
The Sustainable Management of Land and Fisheries Resources Using Multicriteria Techniques: A Meta-Analysis. *Land* **2020**, *9*, 380.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100380

**AMA Style**

Diaz-Balteiro L, Iglesias-Merchan C, Romero C, García de Jalón S.
The Sustainable Management of Land and Fisheries Resources Using Multicriteria Techniques: A Meta-Analysis. *Land*. 2020; 9(10):380.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100380

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Diaz-Balteiro, Luis, Carlos Iglesias-Merchan, Carlos Romero, and Silvestre García de Jalón.
2020. "The Sustainable Management of Land and Fisheries Resources Using Multicriteria Techniques: A Meta-Analysis" *Land* 9, no. 10: 380.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100380