Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Sustainable Management of Forest Ecosystems: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I greatly appreciated your manuscript entitled "Enhancing sustainable argan agro-sylvopastoral ecosystem management for climate change adaptation in Morocco: a review of multi-criteria decision-making methods and implications". You have carried out a thorough and competent literature review. The topic addressed is very interesting and the methodology adopted is clearly explained and therefore I believe it can also be replicated for other topics and by other authors. However, I would ask you to make a further effort to better present the results obtained, because there are several typos, and the comments of the figures or tables are not always clear. If possible, try to better link the comments in the results to the objectives that you stated at the beginning of the work.

Please find below some suggestions that I hope will help you.

 

1.      Introduction: please provide the structure of the paper.

 

2.      Materials and Methods: 

·       I believe that this part is divided into too many sub-paragraphs, for example you could leave only the title 2.1 Data sources and extraction, the title of 2.5 Description of criteria for inclusion and exclusion (it would become 2.2) and 2.8 Data analysis would become 2.3. All other titles may be cancelled.  Instead of the title of subparagraph 2.4 it would be sufficient to write "Our research question was the following...".

·       Line 151: “includes (a)…” should be “includes: (a)…”.

·       Before table 2 it’s enough to have only one empty line

·       Line 263: “can be expressed as” should be “can be expressed as:”.

·       Line 264: please number the equation.

 

3.      Results:

·       Line 282: please specify that Table 3 is in the Appendix A or in supplementary material.

·       In figure 2, please check the editing, pay attention to the size of the boxes because the written content cannot always be read well. Furthermore, you must enter the thousands separator for numbers that exceed 3 digits.

·       Line 313-314: there is the repetition of “multiple approach”, the second can be deleted.

·       Please leave an empty line before figure 4.

·       Line 373: (fig. 4d) should be (Figure 5d), as well as on line 380 (Fig. 4e) should be (Figure 5e).

·       You should always insert a blank line before and after tables and figures, for example for figure 5.

·       Lines 388-391: I believe this text goes before figure 5.

·       The title of figure 5 must be only “Figure 5. Relative frequency comparison of MCDM models in forestry over time (from A to F)”, the rest could be moved in the text. If it is possible please try to simplify the comment of this figure.

·       In table 4 I cannot find the “a”.

·       Line 463: "these areas." must be moved before figure 8.

 

4.      Discussion

I'm not sure if discussions should be included in this type of literature review, but basically they seem like conclusive comments to me. Therefore, I would suggest you eliminate the title and move the text into the conclusions paragraph.

5.      Conclusion and research needs

Once you include here the comments that are currently in the discussions I think they will be fine.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I greatly appreciated your manuscript entitled "Enhancing sustainable argan agro-sylvopastoral ecosystem management for climate change adaptation in Morocco: a review of multi-criteria decision-making methods and implications". You have carried out a thorough and competent literature review. The topic addressed is very interesting and the methodology adopted is clearly explained and therefore I believe it can also be replicated for other topics and by other authors. However, I would ask you to make a further effort to better present the results obtained, because there are several typos, and the comments of the figures or tables are not always clear. If possible, try to better link the comments in the results to the objectives that you stated at the beginning of the work.

Please find below some suggestions that I hope will help you.

 

Comment:  Introduction: please provide the structure of the paper.

Answer: As suggested, we inserted the structure of the paper at the end of the introduction.

The remainder of the article is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the materials and methods used, including the research question, search terms, study selection criteria, and data analysis techniques. Section 3 presents the results, which include an analysis of MCDM models used in forest management, their distribution across countries, and the trends in model adoption over time. Section 4 discusses the challenges of applying MCDM methods in forest management and the disparities between developed and developing countries. Finally, section 5 concludes with key findings, policy implications, and recommendations for future research.

2. Materials and Methods : 

Comment: I believe that this part is divided into too many sub-paragraphs, for example you could leave only the title 2.1 Data sources and extraction, the title of 2.5 Description of criteria for inclusion and exclusion (it would become 2.2) and 2.8 Data analysis would become 2.3. All other titles may be cancelled.  Instead of the title of subparagraph 2.4 it would be sufficient to write "Our research question was the following...".

• Line 151: “includes (a)…” should be “includes: (a)…”.
• Before table 2 it’s enough to have only one empty line
• Line 263: “can be expressed as” should be “can be expressed as:”.
• Line 264: please number the equation.

 

Answer: We have revised the structure of Section 2 accordingly. The new structure now includes the following main titles: 2.1 Data Sources and Extraction, 2.2 Description of Criteria for Inclusion and Exclusion, and 2.3 Data Analysis, with all other sub-titles removed. We have integrated the research question directly into the text, as suggested: "Our research question was the following...". Additionally, we have made the following revisions:

In line 151, we have changed “includes (a)…” to “includes: (a)…”.

Before Table 2, we have ensured that only one empty line is present.

In line 263, we have updated “can be expressed as” to “can be expressed as:”.

The equation in line 264 has now been numbered as per your request.

 

3. Results:

Comment: Line 282: please specify that Table 3 is in the Appendix A or in supplementary material.

• In figure 2, please check the editing, pay attention to the size of the boxes because the written content cannot always be read well. Furthermore, you must enter the thousands separator for numbers that exceed 3 digits.
• Line 313-314: there is the repetition of “multiple approach”, the second can be deleted.
• Please leave an empty line before figure 4.
• Line 373: (fig. 4d) should be (Figure 5d), as well as on line 380 (Fig. 4e) should be (Figure 5e).
• You should always insert a blank line before and after tables and figures, for example for figure 5.
• Lines 388-391: I believe this text goes before figure 5.
• The title of figure 5 must be only “Figure 5. Relative frequency comparison of MCDM models in forestry over time (from A to F)”, the rest could be moved in the text. If it is possible please try to simplify the comment of this figure.
• In table 4 I cannot find the “a”.
• Line 463: "these areas." must be moved before figure 8.

 

Answer: Table 3 is now correctly specified as being in Appendix A. For Figure 2 (now Figure 1), we have adjusted the size of the boxes to improve readability and included thousands separators for numbers exceeding three digits. The repeated phrase "multiple approach" on lines 313-314 has been removed to avoid redundancy. An empty line has been added before Figure 4 (now Figure 3) to ensure proper separation. The references to figures have not been corrected, with (Fig. 4d) now labeled as (Figure 5d) and (Fig. 4e) as (Figure 5e), as we removed former figure 1 relative to argan forest map in Morocco. We have also inserted blank lines before and after tables and figures, including Figure 4, to enhance clarity. The text on lines 388-391 has been repositioned to precede Figure 4. The title of Figure 4 has been simplified to “Figure 4. Relative frequency comparison of MCDM models in forestry over time (from A to F),” and have simplified comments integrated into the main text. The missing “a” in Table 4 has been added, and the area from Line 463 has been moved before Figure 7.

 

4. Discussion

Comment: I'm not sure if discussions should be included in this type of literature review, but basically they seem like conclusive comments to me. Therefore, I would suggest you eliminate the title and move the text into the conclusions paragraph.

Answer: We included a Discussion section to compare our results with those of other authors, enriching the analysis and avoiding the conflation of discussions with the final conclusions. Similar reviewed studies generally include discussion section, for instance:

Sabaei, D., Erkoyuncu, J., and Roy, R. 2015. A Review of Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods for Enhanced Maintenance Delivery. Procedia CIRP, 37: 30-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.08.086

Liu, H.-C., Chen, X.-Q., Duan, C.-Y., and Wang, Y.-M. 2019. Failure mode and effect analysis using multi-criteria decision making methods: A systematic literature review. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 135: 881-97. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.06.055.

 

5. Conclusion and research needs

Comment: Once you include here the comments that are currently in the discussions, I think they will be fine.

Answer: We have chosen to maintain a separate conclusion to emphasize the specific relevance and importance of applying the MCDM method to the argan forest in Morocco. This allows us to clearly highlight the key takeaways and practical implications of our findings, distinct from the broader discussion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The topic is important and timely. The argan ecosystem in Morocco faces dual pressures from climate change and human activities. Sustainable management strategies are urgently needed. Using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods to evaluate different management options can provide valuable insights for developing adaptive strategies. Overall, this is an innovative, informative and rigorously analyzed paper, which has important reference value for the sustainable management of the argan ecosystem. To publish it in Forest, I suggest the authors further revise and improve the paper based on the comments below.

1. The literature review on MCDM applications in forestry is systematic, but lacks in-depth discussion on the potential of applying MCDM specifically to argan ecosystem management. I suggest adding more content in this part.

2. In section 2.8 Data Analysis needs more clarification.

3. The Discussion proposes opportunities and challenges of applying MCDM in argan ecosystem management, but the analysis is not deep enough. I suggest further exploring the applicability of MCDM considering Morocco's specific national conditions, such as socioeconomic development level, scientific and technological infrastructure, etc.

4. In addition to reduced rainfall and increased drought, climate change may also bring other risks such as pests, diseases, and extreme weather events. It is recommended to supplement the discussion in this regard.

5. The Conclusion summarizes the main findings and proposes future research directions. But I suggest further refining the innovation points and explicitly stating the implications of this research for argan conservation and sustainable development.

6. The references are adequate and cited properly. But some references are relatively old (e.g. Ref 4 published in 1992). I suggest supplementing some literature in the recent 5 years to reflect the cutting-edge of the research.

7. The English writing is fluent and idiomatic, but some long sentences are a bit wordy. I suggest breaking it into shorter sentences to refine the language.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 :

The topic is important and timely. The argan ecosystem in Morocco faces dual pressures from climate change and human activities. Sustainable management strategies are urgently needed. Using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods to evaluate different management options can provide valuable insights for developing adaptive strategies. Overall, this is an innovative, informative and rigorously analyzed paper, which has important reference value for the sustainable management of the argan ecosystem. To publish it in Forest, I suggest the authors further revise and improve the paper based on the comments below.

 

Comment: The literature review on MCDM applications in forestry is systematic but lacks in-depth discussion on the potential of applying MCDM specifically to argan ecosystem management. I suggest adding more content in this part.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. However, we have refocused the paper by removing all details on case studies and instead concentrate on a comprehensive review of the MCDM methods that have been applied. We will elaborate on the discussion once we have applied the method with data on the argan tree in Morocco in a future paper.

Comment: In section 2.8 Data Analysis needs more clarification.

Answer: We improved the data analysis section (now 2.3 Data analysis) by adding some clarification.

“We employed descriptive statistics to present quantitative trends, such as the frequency of different MCDM models over time and their geographical distribution. Thematic content analysis is utilized to investigate how MCDM indicators are reflected in relevant publications. These included examining and quantifying the appearance of MCDM indicators in titles, abstracts, keywords, and main texts to assess their importance. The word cloud, known as "Cirrus" in Voyant Tools, generated using Java, displays the most common terms related to MCDM models, with the size of each word indicating its frequency, a process that involves Natural Language Processing (NLP) analysis, including the identification and exclusion of stop words with the statistical analysis of word frequency, which are filtered out in text analysis [64,65]. Also, to address trends over years, we considered a “segment” as a specific period within the range of 2010 to 2024. Because the software (https://voyant-tools.org/) divides this range into 10 segments, each segment represents approximately 1.4 years. The relative frequency of a specific MCDM model used in each segment ( ) can be expressed as:

                  (1)

where:

n represents the number of times a specific MCDM model appears within a segment.

N represents the sum of the number of models mentioned in all the papers published within the same time segment.

Factorial Correspondence Analysis (FCA) was used to map the associations between different MCDM models and the journals, revealing how certain models were more prevalent in specific publication outlets, using a specific interpretation of X² according to Pearson [66]. This method provides a comprehensive view of set I of elements described by set J of properties through numerical data from the primary basis of this analysis in a rectangular I-J cross-table [67]. The Lambda value, a statistical measure used in FCA, indicates the strength of the association between the variables. A higher Lambda value suggests a stronger correlation, helping researchers understand the degree to which certain models are linked to particular journals, and aids in interpreting the significance and relevance of the observed patterns in the data. Statistical analyses are conducted using Stata (18.0; StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX), XLSTAT, Voyant Tools, and Microsoft Excel.”

Comment: The discussion proposes opportunities and challenges of applying MCDM in argan ecosystem management, but the analysis is not deep enough. I suggest further exploring the applicability of MCDM considering Morocco's specific national conditions, such as socioeconomic development level, scientific and technological infrastructure, etc.

Answer: We acknowledge that the discussion on the applicability of MCDM in the context of Morocco’s unique conditions, including its socioeconomic development level and scientific and technological infrastructure, was not sufficiently deep. By focusing the paper on a revision of MCDM methods, we aim to address this gap more effectively in future research. This revised focus highlights the general applicability and limitations of MCDM approaches, paving the way for more specific analysis in subsequent studies (argan forest).

Comment: In addition to reduced rainfall and increased drought, climate change may also bring other risks such as pests, diseases, and extreme weather events. It is recommended to supplement the discussion in this regard.

Answer: We added the following text:

The interaction between climate factors and pathogen dynamics poses a significant risk to the sustainability of forests [127]. Increased temperatures and thermal stress are projected to further degrade argan trees, hindering their regeneration capabilities [128].

In this regard, we included the section “4.2 Implications of MCDM application in forest management design under climate change (p. 16)”

 

Comment: The Conclusion summarizes the main findings and proposes future research directions. But I suggest further refining the innovation points and explicitly stating the implications of this research for argan conservation and sustainable development.

Answer: We have further refined the innovation points in the conclusion section by explicitly highlighting assisted migration as a key technological innovation. We have also clearly articulated the implications of this research for argan conservation and sustainable development.

 

Comment: The references are adequate and cited properly. But some references are relatively old (e.g. Ref 4 published in 1992). I suggest supplementing some literature in the recent 5 years to reflect the cutting-edge of the research.

Answer: We examined each of the references according to their relevance and their contribution to the advancement of practices and knowledge in the socio-economic field of agroforestry (argan and others).

7. Prendergast, H.D.; Walker, C.C. The argan: Multipurpose tree of Morocco. Curtis's bot. mag 1992, 9, 75-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8748.1992.tb00072.x.

This article (7) has been replaced by this one published in 2022.

Chakhchar, A., Ben Salah, I., El Kharrassi, Y., Filali-Maltouf, A., El Modafar, C., Lamaoui, M. Agro-Fruit-Forest Systems Based on Argan Tree in Morocco: A Review of Recent Results. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 12:783615. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.783615.

4. Benchekroun, F.; Buttoud, G. L'arganeraie dans l'économie rurale du sud-ouest marocain. For. Médit. 1989, 11, 127-136.

We have maintained this article because it is published in a listed journal and the articles are peer-reviewed. In addition, this article is written by two leading specialists in the field of argan socio-economics (Prof. Benchekroun and Prof. Buttoud). To our knowledge, we have a duty to recognize the work of the pioneers in this field. In addition, even if the article dates from 1992, it is still relevant. We cannot not cite this type of article if we are working on the socio-economics of argan.

 

Comment:  The English writing is fluent and idiomatic, but some long sentences are a bit wordy. I suggest breaking it into shorter sentences to refine the language.

Answer: Thank you for bringing up this important point about sentence structure and readability. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and made improvements.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article refers to "Enhancing sustainable argan agro-sylvopastoral ecosystem management for climate change adaptation in Morocco: a review of multi-criteria decision-making methods and implications".

The article is interesting, but I propose to consider the following suggestions:

(1) The title is very long, it contains a lot of information. It should be comprehensive and relatively short. Maybe it can be modified?

(2) I propose to improve the abstract by adding information about the techniques used to conduct the review. What aspects were analyzed, e.g. frequency analysis, bibliometrics, keywords, etc. I propose to rearrange the order of abstract fragments, especially the last fragment "...We provide a thorough overview of MCDM's application in complex forest..." to add earlier, before "...We found that the most commonly used methods are Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)...". Now the results are mixed with the conclusions.

(3) Virtually all of the drawings are illegible, missing (no description of the axes and data), etc. Only Fig. 1, Fig. 7, and Fig. 9 look good. The rest are of poor quality. Please correct them.

(4) Comment on the data from Table 2.

(5) I miss a chapter in this analysis that would contain a discussion of the content of the works selected for analysis. Please present it even in a synthetic way. Without such an analysis, the study is incomplete.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 :

Article refers to "Enhancing sustainable argan agro-sylvopastoral ecosystem management for climate change adaptation in Morocco: a review of multi-criteria decision-making methods and implications".

The article is interesting, but I propose to consider the following suggestions:

Comment: The title is very long, it contains a lot of information. It should be comprehensive and relatively short. Maybe it can be modified?

Answer: We appreciate your valuable comment. So, we have modified the title as: Evaluating multi-criteria decision-making methods for sustainable management of forest ecosystems: a systematic review

 

Comment: I propose to improve the abstract by adding information about the techniques used to conduct the review. What aspects were analyzed, e.g. frequency analysis, bibliometrics, keywords, etc. I propose to rearrange the order of abstract fragments, especially the last fragment "...We provide a thorough overview of MCDM's application in complex forest..." to add earlier, before "...We found that the most commonly used methods are Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)...". Now the results are mixed with the conclusions.

Answer: In the revised Abstract, we indicated the three main analysis tools used, namely: descriptive statistics (frequencies), thematic content analysis, and statistical inference (FCA).

Additionally, we have rearranged the abstract to improve its flow and separate the results from the conclusions.

 

Comment: Virtually all of the drawings are illegible, missing (no description of the axes and data), etc. Only Fig. 1, Fig. 7, and Fig. 9 look good. The rest are of poor quality. Please correct them.

Answer: We have addressed these issues by improving the readability of all figures. However, we would like to clarify the following points regarding specific figures:

Figure 4: This is a combination of several plots, each of which has properly labeled axes. The explanation of how these plots were constructed is provided in the methodology (Section 2).

Figure 5: It includes two axes, labeled "Relative Frequencies" and "Time Segments", like each plot of Figure 4.

Figure 3: This is a word cloud illustrating the most studied models, with the size of each model name indicating its frequency. Since this type of figure does not require axes, it is represented accordingly.

Figure 2: We have corrected it by adding the label for the second axis.

Figure 1: This is a process diagram based on the ROSES protocol, which does not require axes.

Figure 7: We have already labeled the axes as F1 and F2 in the legend, where each point corresponds to a coordinate projection on the plot.

We hope these clarifications and corrections resolve the issues mentioned.

 

Comment: Comment on the data from Table 2.

Answer: We appreciate your comment on Table 2.

We moved the following above comment from Table 2, section 2.1 Data Sources and Extraction, to place it just before Table 2.

We focused on peer-reviewed scientific literature published from January 2010 to March 2024, restricted only to English and French language publications, as our review encom-passed a wider range of sources (Table 2). The history of MCDM can be traced back to ap-proximately 40 years [61]. Over time, researchers and practitioners have developed various MCDM models to address specific challenges in forest management [62]. The emphasis within the time framework is justified because it allows for the inclusion of the most recent developments and advancements in the field of MCDM. Additionally, it ensures the rele-vance of the study by addressing the current challenges and contexts of MCDM.

 

Comment: I miss a chapter in this analysis that would contain a discussion of the content of the works selected for analysis. Please present it even in a synthetic way. Without such an analysis, the study is incomplete.

Answer: We added the following text in the Results section:

3.1.2 Content overview and statistical distribution of selected forest management studies

A total of 17 countries are represented, with Turkey, China, and Iran being the most frequently studied. In terms of time distribution, 15% of the studies were published be-tween 2011 and 2015, 45% between 2016 and 2020, and 40% between 2021 and 2023, re-flecting an increasing interest in sustainable forest management and multi-criteria deci-sion-making techniques in recent years. The geographic distribution shows that China ac-counts for 20% of the studies, Turkey for 15%, and Iran for 12%, with the remaining 53% distributed among countries like Sweden, Japan, and Spain. The selected studies employ various empirical methods, such as the AHP, SMART, and Bayesian Network (BN) models, to assess forest management practices (Table 3 in Appendix A).

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken my suggestions into account. I recommend publication in its current form.

Author Response

Thanks