Use of Analytic Hierarchy Process for Wind Farm Installation Region Prioritization–Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Region Prioritization for Wind Farm Installation – Case Study

This paper proposes the AHP method to survey the priority regions for the installation of wind farms.  Even though it is an interesting and researchable topic, the paper is not publishable currently.  My recommendation is that the author makes a major effort to improve the paper.

The following are issues, problems, questions, and suggestions that may help the author to improve the paper.

1.Literature on multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) models has been increasing from past many years. The paper needs to clarify its contribution and significance on academic and practical front.

 
2.How is the proposed model more outstanding compared to other existing approaches?  Since a lot of works have been done using some kind of multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) models to solve similar problems, how did the authors know this is a good approach, but not other existing ones?

3.What is the general methodology or technology to address the regions of wind farms selection problem?
 

The authors should review papers with similar topics and explain the similarities and differences of this paper with others.  In addition, how and why is the proposed method more outstanding than others’ works, especially the works by Otay and Jaller (2020)?  More works by other scholars should be added.  A comparison of these works is suggested.

Otay, I., Jaller, M., 2020. “Multi-criteria and multi-expert wind power farm location selection using a pythagorean fuzzy analytic hierarchy process,” Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing,  1029, pp. 905-914.

Emeksiz, C., Demirci, B., 2019. “The determination of offshore wind energy potential of Turkey by using novelty hybrid site selection method,” Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 36,100562.

Ayodele, T.R., Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., Odigie, O., Munda, J.L., 2018. “A multi-criteria GIS based model for wind farm site selection using interval type-2 fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: The case study of Nigeria,” Applied Energy, 228, pp.1853-1869.

4.The authors need to differentiate the newly proposed parts and the parts that were from others’ works. 
 

5.The manuscript is like an extended case study.  Is it applicable in the regions of wind farms selection problem ?

 
6.Follow the journal requirement to revise the format of the references.

Author Response

Thanks for the referee comments. Below comments and responses.

1. Literature on multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) models has been increasing from past many years. The paper needs to clarify its contribution and significance on academic and practical front. DONE

 
2.How is the proposed model more outstanding compared to other existing approaches?  Basically bringing other criteria for decision making, based on identifiable data, for an adequate assessment and implementation of public and private policies for regional development and investment with wind energy.

Since a lot of works have been done using some kind of multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) models to solve similar problems, how did the authors know this is a good approach, but not other existing ones? The authors evaluated that the selection methods based only on technical criteria is very restricted for the development of regions, requiring other factors for the analysis, as indicated in the article. The sum of these factors and their ranking with the AHP can thus support the implementation of policies to support the deployment of wind energy in states and countries. This was the approach and main aspect that the article intended to bring.

3.What is the general methodology or technology to address the regions of wind farms selection problem? Basically the methodology used is the technical potential; checking the wind speed profile in the region to be installed the wind farm. In addition, the statistical variability of its constancy, verifying the energy density achieved.
 

The authors should review papers with similar topics and explain the similarities and differences of this paper with others.  In addition, how and why is the proposed method more outstanding than others’ works, especially the works by Otay and Jaller (2020)?  More works by other scholars should be added.  A comparison of these works is suggested. DONE

Otay, I., Jaller, M., 2020. “Multi-criteria and multi-expert wind power farm location selection using a pythagorean fuzzy analytic hierarchy process,” Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing,  1029, pp. 905-914. Ok

Emeksiz, C., Demirci, B., 2019. “The determination of offshore wind energy potential of Turkey by using novelty hybrid site selection method,” Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 36,100562. Ok

Ayodele, T.R., Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., Odigie, O., Munda, J.L., 2018. “A multi-criteria GIS based model for wind farm site selection using interval type-2 fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: The case study of Nigeria,” Applied Energy, 228, pp.1853-1869. Ok

4.The authors need to differentiate the newly proposed parts and the parts that were from others’ works.  DONE
 

5.The manuscript is like an extended case study.  Is it applicable in the regions of wind farms selection problem? It is possible, considering the local characteristics.

 
6.Follow the journal requirement to revise the format of the references. DONE

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Please see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for the referee comments. Below comments and responses.

General comments

 The authors need to expand on the approach they used to elicit the expert information, e.g. profiling of experts, way of selection, and method of opinion extraction.  In line 247 the authors mention for first time a questionnaire that was used in their research, but not enough details are provided.  A more detailed analysis should be included in the methodology section.  DONE, section 2.2 included.

 There are some structural problems in the article.  Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 present results and therefore should be included in the Results section.  Section 4 (Discussion) should therefore be written, because it is actually missing.

DONE; the sections were restructured to give the understanding that the discussions were made throughout the presentation of the results.

 It would be good the authors to include a reliability statistical measure for the weight values presented in Tables 2 and 3 (e.g. the Cronbach’s alpha value).  In the same tables they should provide an explanation why the geometric mean was used and not the median value. DONE

As Saaty (2008) described, the geometric mean is the only one that works in AHP to better represent the results of judgments; because of this, geometric mean was used at work.

It is also important to note that the AHP method has its sensitivity criteria for its statistical confidence, and does not require other tools for this (so tools like Cronbach’s alpha value have not been implemented).

  A more thorough literature review of AHP applications with emphasis on the energy field should be included, as well as other approaches related to area ranking for wind farm investments. DONE in the introduction; add refer. [19-23].

 English language needs attention. DONE

Specific comments

91. 85-87 and 89-91. Please correct the English language. DONE
92. 293. ‘selected’ instead of ‘elected’? DONE
93. 267-272. It does not make sense. There are no sections 4.1, 4.2 etc. in section 3. DONE
94. 372-374. There is no section 5.1 DONE
95. 415 “… and 0” What does it mean? DONE

Reviewer 3 Report

Author Response

Review 3:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors carried out a good generalizing work, developed an algorithm and identified criteria for assessing the most efficient location of wind turbines.
Need to improve picture quality: fig.4,5,6.

The study was partially based on the opinion of experts, in connection with which the level of influence of the human factor is rather high.

Author Response

Thanks for the referee comments. Below comments and responses.

The authors carried out a good generalizing work, developed an algorithm and identified criteria for assessing the most efficient location of wind turbines.
Need to improve picture quality: fig.4,5,6. DONE

The study was partially based on the opinion of experts, in connection with which the level of influence of the human factor is rather high. Yes, inherent to the AHP process with specialists. But the sensibility analysis of AHP reduces this error.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my concerns have been addressed and the revised manuscript is now acceptable after minor revision.

Author Response

Dear referee,

Thanks for the referee comments. Below comments and responses.

A new revision in English was made, and with that, the paper title was changed.

Best Regards.

Alex Santos

Reviewer 3 Report

Author Response

Dear referee,

Thanks for the referee comments. Below comments and responses (in the attached too).

A new revision in English was made, and with that, the paper title was changed.

Best Regards.

Alex Santos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf