Table 2: Number of alternatives and type of approach considered in reviewed applications.


A1Amador-Jiménez and Mrawira 330 x[18]
A2Chamorro39410 x[2]
A3Chan et al.500500x[30]
A4Chootinan et al.35410 x[31]
A5Chou and Le11515 x[28]
A6De La Garza et al.5915 x[16]
A7Farhan and Fwa15041 x[25]
A8Feighan et al.1455–15 x[14]
A9Ferreira et al.2764 x[22]
A10Fwa and Chan128128x[33]
A11 Fwa and Farhan15041 x[26]
A12Gao and Zhang45 x[19]
A13Gao et al.3410 x[17]
A14Meneses and Ferreira32720 x[32]
A15Moazami et al.131131x[34]
A16Ng et al.45–10 x[20]
A17Odoki and KeraliInteger program.100165xx[21]
A18Increm. benefit cost4001712xx[21]
A19 Reddy and Veeraragavan5252x[13]
A20Shah et al.21410 x[12]
A21Tsunokawa et al. 520 x[27]
A22Wang et al.1055 x[23]
A23Yoo and Garcia-Diaz4047 x[24]