Electrification in Remote Communities: Assessing the Value of Electricity Using a Community Action Research Approach in Kabakaburi, Guyana

The authors present a methodology for the best approach to the problem of production and supply of electricity in rural communities (remote economies). Taking into account multiple aspects and/or variables, such as environmental, economic and technical.

I consider work as an important contribution, the theme deserves attention, to implement systems of energy generation in isolated communities,   should not follow the same model of urban areas, or environments with a more dynamic economic model.

We thank the Reviewer for this favorable comment.

The work is well referenced, the methodology was presented adequately, besides presenting an analysis of the limitations of the proposed methodology.

Thank you. Some minor changes were made to the references to accommodate observations by other Reviewers.

As for formatting, I suggest a few changes:

- In line 89, the reference number in the citation is missing;

Fixed

Table 1 is not quoted in the text;

Fixed

Format caption from Figure 7.

Fixed

The manuscript presents an approach to supplying electrical services to remote communities operating a subsistence economy. It has developed a bottom-up community participation approach to power system design and is presented the approach called CARES with its foundation in action research methodology to explore the values in the community, the valued electricity services that the community feel they need and the way the community adopts the different   values types through problem-solving. The topic is interesting and it is adapted to this journal. The subject may attract some interest to the readers.

    In general, this manuscript is well organized and written, with a comprehensive   literature review, detailing the CARES approach, clearly stated methodology and nicely presented findings.

We thank the Reviewer for this favourable comment.

 Some   minor presentation and language issues:

- define   all notations that are used where the concept appears first mentioned in the   text;

We have checked the text and all abbreviations are defined at first use, or in the abbreviations.

- sub-chapters numbering eg 3.1. ... and  5.1 ... seems to follow something e.g. 3.2. ... and 5.2. ... In the current form it gives the   impression that something is missing;

Thank you, this has been addressed by renumbering the headings.

- L521 "… this approach demonstrated, …" also seems to miss something.

This has been repaired. It was an artifact of the latex template in the way it pushes the images into the text.

The authors must follow strictly the manuscript guidelines to format the whole article in accordance with the “MDPI” requirements. Tables, figures   (for example, Figure 2. when printing, the letters are too small, unreadable;   Figure 7 - overlapping text), formulas, row spacing, letter size, footnotes   (usually, references are listed at the end of the manuscript in the References   Section, its are not shown in the bottom of the page).

We have used the latex template provided by the journal.

Several of the footnotes, especially those with references, have been moved into the body of the document.

Having mentioned the above, this manuscript is proposed to be published after minor revision, mainly elaborating on the importance of its contribution. This can be done giving further emphasis to its regional and/or   global importance

The contribution has been expanded in a new section 6.1 as part of the discussion. Regional and global implications have been elaborated in section   7.   

I have   reviewed the manuscript "Electrification in remote communities: Assessing the value of   electricity using a community action research approach in Kabakaburi, Guyana.", Manuscript ID:   sustainability-464161 that has been submitted for publication in the MDPI   Sustainability Journal and I have identified a series of aspects that in my opinion must be addressed in order to bring a benefit to the manuscript.

In this paper, the authors propose a rural community participatory approach for the identification of the types of values from the end-user perspective that may guarantee a successful rural electrification design that fits the needs, with the assistance of a facilitator. I consider that the article will benefit if the   authors take into account the following remarks and address within the   manuscript the signaled issues:

We thank the Reviewer for this favorable comment.

1)      The title of the paper. As the title of the paper is not a sentence, one should not use a period at its end.

Fixed

2)        The sections of the manuscript. The manuscript under review will benefit if it is restructured in accordance with the Sustainability MDPI Journal's Template that provides a   more logical structure that is much more appropriate for a research article.

We have used the latex template provided by the journal.

The restructuring of the manuscript will also help the authors to better express the novelty of their work and the contribution that they made to the current state of knowledge.

The contribution has been expanded in a new section 6.1 as part of the discussion. Regional and global implications have been elaborated in section   7.   

Consequently, the manuscript under review should be restructured as follows: Abstract, Keywords, 1. Introduction,   2. Materials and Methods, 3. Results, 4. Discussion, 5. Conclusions (not mandatory), 6. Patents (not mandatory), Supplementary Materials (not mandatory), Author Contributions, Funding, Acknowledgments, Conflicts of   Interest, Appendices and References.

We have changed the headings to better align with the standard MDPI  structure. Changes include the addition of a   method section and clearly identified results. We note that other papers in the journal also have some liberty in their structure.

3)        The "Materials and Methods" section. It will benefit the paper if the authors restructure their paper and devise a proper "Materials and   Methods" section, as requested by the Sustainability MDPI Journal's   Template. In order to bring a benefit to the manuscript, the authors should state and justify very clear in the "Materials and Methods"   section, preferably within the first paragraph, the choices they have made when developing the final form of their proposed approach. In this section,   the newly developed methods should be described in detail while well-established methods (and information) can be briefly described and appropriately cited.

The materials and methods section has been included.

4)      The equations within the manuscript. Just like when a portion of text that expresses an idea, a concept, a definition that has not been invented by an author has to cite and give appropriate credit to the original source, a mathematical formalism is subjected to the same requirements in a   scientific article. If a definition, a statement is being expressed by using a mathematical formalism that was not brought to the current state of knowledge by the authors, the source must be cited. Consequently, as in the manuscript under review one can find equations that were not devised for the first time in the scientific literature by the authors, I consider that it is appropriate to cite their source. In what concerns the equations that were devised by the authors for the first time, they should be explained in detail so that the reader can understand clearly how the authors arrived at the respective equations.

The equations have an element of novelty and have been discussed further in sections 6.2.  

5)        The "Discussion" section is missing. Even if the paper contains a   section entitled "7.   Discussion: CARES approach and Kabakaburi", the very important   "Discussion" section, devised as recommended by the Sustainability   MDPI Journal's Template, is missing. The manuscript under review will benefit if the authors devise an appropriate "Discussion" section and add it to the manuscript. In order to validate the usefulness of their research,   in the "Discussion" section (that for the time being is missing completely   from the manuscript), the authors should make a comparison between their   study from the manuscript and other ones that have been developed and used in   the literature for the same or similar purposes. In the   "Discussion" section the authors should also highlight current limitations of their study, and briefly mention some precise directions that they intend to follow in their future research work.

A new section '6 Discussion' has been included.

The reconciliation of the findings with the existing literature has   been elaborated in new section 6.1

Limitations of the work are further elaborated in section 6.4.

Future research ideas have been added to section 6.5.

The contribution has been expanded in the new section 6.1 as part of the discussion. Regional and global implications have been elaborated in section   7.   

6)        The paper   will benefit if the authors make a step further, beyond their approach and   provide an insight at the end of the "Discussion" section regarding   what they consider to be, based on the obtained results, the most important   steps that all the involved parties should take in order to benefit from the   results of the research conducted within the manuscript as to attain the   ultimate goal of sustainability.

This has been elaborated in sections 6.1 and 7.

7)        Line 89: "…maintenance of the systems, as in the case of Tunisia [?]...". Please revise this sentence, as in its current form a citation is missing.

Fixed

8)        The citations within the paper. The first citation of paper [39] is at Line 183, the first citation of paper   [45] is at Line   191, while the papers [40]-[44] are cited for the first time after the Line 197 (on an unnumbered line).   According to the Sustainability MDPI Journal's Template, the references must be numbered in the order of appearance in the text and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. The authors must reorder and renumber their   References.

This is due to the paper formatting and positioning of the table and text. It is an artifact of the latex template, and the way it automatically moves the tables around.

9)      After Line 484, on the unnumbered line, Figure 7.  For consistency reasons, in a scientific article one should not represent on the same chart different sets of physical entities. In the case   of Figure 7, the authors have chosen a first, left vertical axis representing   the volume of timber sold (measured in m^3) and a second, right vertical axis   representing the money earned from export sales of timber (measured in   millions of US$) and they have represented both sets of data on the same   graph, sharing the horizontal axis. Consequently, the authors should present different charts for the two different sets of entities and adjust the vertical axis accordingly.

Figure replaced

10)   Line 288-291: "Kabakaburi is a hinterland village in   Guyana, South America. […] It has a total population of approximately 650   persons and a total household of 114." Line 548: "Community members participated fully in every area.". These two sentences can create some confusion to the reader that must be clarified by the authors. Firstly, if the authors have interviewed all the members of the local community, they should know exactly the number of the community members and therefore it is not necessary to say that the local population is "of approximately 650 persons". Secondly, the authors must   provide more details regarding the community members that have "participated fully in every   area", they must specify what is the minimum age of the   interviewed persons (I suppose that the authors did not involve the children   in their research) and must provide more details regarding the number of   valid questionnaires (used in their research), specifying the structure of   the local population: age, gender, occupation, educational level, family   size.

Text added to the end of section 4.1:

Sixty   adults in the community between the ages of 20 to 80 years old participated   in the community

332

visit through to the workshop altogether. A total of 29 questionnaires were   issued and completed by

333

residents who participated in the workshop see Figure 2. The age distribution and   occupation of the

334

participants are presented in Figure 3. The primary occupation is farming, while the   education and

335

health sector together employs 18 persons. The average family size is 6. Discussion   with 40 individuals

336

was also completed during the community visit and discussion stage. The   population has an even

337

the ratio   of men and women, with a greater number of residents within the working age   of 18 to 65 years

338

old,   see Figure 4.

The role that communities play in the successful development of any electrification project is essential and the methodology proposed by the authors can be very interesting.

We thank the Reviewer for this favourable comment.

However,   the authors have not made an emphasis on highlighting what the added value or differentiating character is with respect to other similar research found in the literature since this issue of the role of communities has been widely studied. For example, I recommend that authors carry out a thorough bibliographic search, including cases of success or failure, in order to carry out a   comparative analysis with their tool.

A new section 6.1 has been added that reconciles the findings with the wider literature.

 Please,   find the following papers:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082614000945

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082608605669

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082611000469

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303678?via%3Dihub

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082608603105

Thanks, we have reviewed the journals and compared them in the discussion.

Although in the world of international cooperation it is well known that a bottom-up approach is needed, could the authors say, based on their experience, why not?

Added to the discussion, see section 6.1

One doubt that arises from this approach proposed by the authors is the time needed for its implementation before proceeding with the installation of the technical solution; could this be an additional barrier for those organizations dependent on external funding where technical execution times are required for the project? could this time be shortened if the whole process of detecting need and community participation had already been carried out by local NGOs? This last question would not lead us to question whether it is more feasible to carry out projects where there is a counterpart entity that is already consolidated in the region.

The time is a limiting factor and is discussed in the limitations   section 6.4

Another question that arises from this methodology, how do you manage the fact that a   community identifies needs that cannot be met technically or with approved funding?

This is addressed in the discussion, section 6. CARES seeks to let the community independently determine their needs after which the funding may be adjusted to assist.

Your practical application of the methodology is located in a community with previous experience in an energy solution. Could it be that good/bad experiences, especially bad ones, could condition the community's decisions?   Is there any type of action to reverse the failure of solar systems already installed?

Included in the discussion, section 6

I really   like table 3, as it can be very useful for optimizing the design according to   the consumption profiles of the end-users

We thank the Reviewer for this favorable comment.

And the last doubt arose: should decisions be left in the hands of the community that may be the result of their technical ignorance? Wouldn't it be more advisable to do previous training, even if it was superficial?

Considered in the discussion

As the authors can see, there are many doubts that arise when reviewing the article,   which should be resolved to give the go-ahead to its publication.

The paper has received a number of edits throughout. Please see attached markup.

This will be an excellent contribution to Sustainability, which introduces local engagements,   cultural values and evaluative mechanisms in what, for many, is a simple engineering problem.  It is written in an analytical style that will appeal to specialists, academics or others at the "top," and introduces the Guyana case study as an example of how "top-down"   factors and linear-problem orientation: electrification in rural settings,   notably including peoples of mixed and non-Western background.

We thank the Reviewer for this favorable comment.

There are   a couple of things that would be useful to consider:

Usually   CBPR approaches contain an iterative and recursive process, whereby at the   initial stage participatory methods designed at dialogue are incorporated at   the start.  It is not clear how local stakeholders were incorporated   initially, rather than toward the end (power game, etc.), although it is   mentioned that stakeholder definition and variation needs further   development.  Would be useful if, through the case study, a radar screen   of what stakeholders or positions might that entail (or, what types of   directions this would take, maybe if an anthropologists, linguist or social   work/public health/education trained specialist were co-designing it. 

The stakeholders presented in the case study are described at the end of section 4.1, and the new charts in Figure 2.

This is criticizing the paper for what it is not, however, but might be useful to include some idea what "bottom-up" strategies, co-designed in dialogue, how that articulates with free, prior and informed consent protocols are needed.  What is the iterative process that will train,   maintain and adjust locally, with or without further "project"   issues or even outside resources, between say 2020-2030, or beyond?    Some thoughts on this are woven in different parts of text, but what is not   clear, and easily resolved in one or two pointed paragraphs, is what,   exactly, the "bottom" looks like, who are these people and how do   they differ, how do diverse viewpoints, visualized by the power game, but   needing to be concretely worked out in consensus-building and local   protocols.

The bottom-up approach is now elaborated in section 6.1.
 
 

What internal social and political issues create different sets of values within the community.  How who and how many of the 650 community members or   114 households participated and how.  Who are these Arawaks and Caribs,   two groups that comprise about 80% of the indigenous communities in   Guyana?  Do these ethnically diverse groups agree on cultural values.  It is hard to envision who the participating groups are, what communities and sub-groups are involved and how How is CARES going to return results to the community, beyond academic articles.  Were local specialists trained in such a way as to mobilize local communities in efforts to maintain program into the future?  How about a map, a photo of the group forums, maybe the tuchao and others, in dialogue or work, would help.

The internal social and political issues were not examined in detail since the focus was on the needs.  Many members were intermarried and people identified more like a community than as a tribe.  No focus was placed on the   intrinsic tribal differences.

Text to this effect has been added to the limitations in section 6.4

Pictures of workshop presented in Figure 3.

Potential future research areas have been identified in section 6.5,   and practical implications for implementation in section 7.