Integrating Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis and Game Theory: A Systematic Review and Structural Perspective

In this paper, we present a systematic review of 103 peer‐reviewed studies published between 1991 and 2025 on the integration of multi‐criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and game theory (GT). Beyond synthesizing the literature, we introduce a structural criterion for evaluating the depth of MCDA–GT integration, focusing on whether multi‐criteria preferences remain active within the equilibrium formulation rather than being aggregated ex ante and introduced as fixed inputs. Applying this criterion, we find that most reviewed studies rely on relatively weak forms of integration: MCDA outputs typically enter game‐theoretic models as fixed payoff parameters while the strategic solution process remains largely unaffected by the multi‐criteria structure, and the literature is further dominated by static, perfect‐information game models combined with aggregated utility representations. By contrast, a smaller group of studies achieves deeper integration by preserving multi‐criteria preferences within the strategic solution process. Across these studies, two broad approaches emerge—some retain preference incomparability through order‐based representations and dominance relations on vector payoffs, while others embed trade‐offs directly within optimization and equilibrium structures—yet both allow multi‐criteria preferences to influence strategic outcomes throughout the solution process. Based on this assessment, we identify four recurring limitations: limited structural embedding of multi‐criteria preferences, underuse of imperfect‐information and adaptive game models, inadequate representation of stakeholder heterogeneity and limited attention to policy and governance settings. For each area we outline representative research directions that may support closer integration of multi‐criteria evaluation and strategic reasoning. Overall, the review suggests that the field has progressed beyond simple method combination but remains uneven in the depth of integration achieved, and this paper clarifies the modelling choices associated with deeper integration and highlights opportunities for future methodological development.