“…Within the research articles, documents with quantitative analysis prevail with 57%. (Wipulanusat, Nakrod, & Prabnarong, 2009), (Mahendra, Prakash, Srinivasa Kumar, Shenoi, & Shailesh, 2010), (Lozoya, Sardá, & Jiménez, 2011), (Kappes, Keiler, von Elverfeldt, & Glade, 2012), (Kappes, Gruber, et al, 2012), (Marzocchi, Garcia-Aristizabal, Gasparini, Mastellone, & Ruocco, 2012), (Kameshwar & Padgett, 2014), (Johnson, Depietri, & Breil, 2016), (Gill & Malamud, 2017), (Stults, 2017), (Villegas-González, Ramos-Cañón, González-Méndez, González-Salazar, & De Plaza-Solórzano, 2017), (Bonacho & Oliveira, 2018), (Furlan, Torresan, Critto, & Marcomini, 2018), (Hagenlocher, Renaud, Haas, & Sebesvari, 2018), (Hernández, Carreño, & Castillo, 2018), (Kwag & Hahm, 2018), (K. Liu, Wang, Cao, Zhu, & Yang, 2018), (Mukherjee, Nateghi, & Hastak, 2018), (Pilone & Demichela, 2018), (Reniers, Khakzad, Cozzani, & Khan, 2018), (Sahoo & Bhaskaran, 2018), (Viavattene et al, 2018), (Zimmaro, Stewart, Brandenberg, Kwak, & Jongejan, 2018) As mentioned above, at the level of research articles, quantitative analyses predominate, and this is a trend that is repeated under the type of analysis level (see Figure 10). Descriptive analyses represent 23% of the 30 analyzed documents, and the other ones contain qualitative, semi-quantitative, and mixed analysis approaches (e.g., combining qualitative, semiquantitative and quantitative analyses).…”