4.7 Review

The analytic hierarchy process supporting decision making for sustainable development: An overview of applications

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 212, Issue -, Pages 119-138

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.270

Keywords

Analytic hierarchy process; Sustainable development; Sustainability; Multi-criteria decision-making; Systematic literature review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The three-pillar concept of environmental, economic, and social sustainability is widely known in academia. Research on sustainable development has noted its complex nature, also reflected in the decision-making process, which requires structuration and systematization. To support decision making for sustainable development, many multi-criteria techniques, both isolated or integrated, have been used. Among them, the analytic hierarchy process stands out as the most often used. This study conducts a systematic literature review on the analytic hierarchy process's support for decision making for sustainable development, making it possible to identify gaps and future research pathways. To do so, it gathers, maps, analyzes, and summarizes the academic literature by reviewing 173 manuscripts published between 2014 and 2018, which are indexed by the Web of Science, Scopus, and Science Direct databases. The results, analysis, and discussion of the screened manuscripts are comprised of (a) a descriptive analysis, (b) mental mapping, (c) bibliometric data, (d) an in-depth analysis of the most cited literature, (e) an in-depth analysis of the most recently cited literature, and (f) the clustering of research evolution. The findings substantially elucidate the advancements in the state-of-the-art of the analytic hierarchy process for sustainable development. Implications for research and practice, as well as promising challenges for further research, are presented. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available