## 16 Conclusions  
1. In a broad search, there was an overlap of only 13 documents between the results of the search of SCOPUS and of Web of Science and this indicates the advisability of accessing multiple databases when conducting a literature review.
2. The published literature on MCDA applications in civil engineering shows a wide geographical spread with Northern Hemisphere continents all represented. However, its coverage of the individual topic areas related to civil engineering is fragmented, focusing particularly on applications in the sustainability, environmental and risk areas and to some extent on project management decision making.
3. The published applications do not demonstrate a wide use of all available methodologies, as only two methods (AHP and TOPSIS) appeared in a keyword analysis. However, analysis of citations contained in the published papers did demonstrate some awareness of alternative methods.
4. There is a large difference between the results of searches using broad keywords and searches using focused keywords (Bridge Design, Earthquake Engineering, Cladding, Sewage Treatment, Foundation design, Truss design, Water Supply, Building Energy, Route selection and Transport mode). Engineers looking for the use of MCDA in specific focused topics should find relevant published work. However, searches trying to gauge the extent of use of MCDA in Civil Engineering may not uncover the full range of such applications or the methods used without a careful choice of search keywords and databases.
5. The previous point implies that communication of information, via publications, on MCDA between engineers could be improved by careful choice of keywords. This applies both to those making literature searches and to the authors of technical articles who seek the widest dissemination of their work and should choose appropriate keywords. A mixture of broad and focused keywords (where applicable) seems to be preferable.
6. There is a wide range of available software implementations of most methods, both free and licensed, however none feature highly in keyword lists or are mentioned in third-party published literature. This suggests a lack of awareness of the available software tools. Perhaps overview articles such as this one can help address this lacuna.
7. Thus, a wider dissemination of knowledge on both the methods themselves, but particularly on the availability and practical use of software implementations, is recommended for civil engineers. This could include both enhancement of the treatment of the topic in University engineering curricula as well as in Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programs for practicing engineers.
8. From the literature survey, it appears that civil engineers are not closely involved in developing new MCDA methodologies but tend to work in teams (most documents found in the search were multi-authored) and in the application of existing methods. The teamwork element is appropriate and is part of an engineers' formation. However, a more active role in developing decision support methods would be welcome.  
This research received no external funding.  
Not applicable.  
The author declares no conflict of interest.