Utility-Scale Solar in the Great Lakes: Analyzing Community Reactions to Solar Developments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper explores identifying potential factors that affect community support and opposition to solar development of solar projects using a content analysis of local newspaper articles, focusing on four Great Lakes states. Overall, the methodology used in the paper is simple, but sound. In addition, the current study contains a lot of analysis results.

Nonetheless, I think it would be better if the author (s) could propose more policy implications based on the results and discussion of the paper that are helpful for the areas. Plus, I wonder whether the factors, economy (tax revenue for community, changes in income for farmer, revenue stability for landowners, economy transition for farming to energy, local electricity rates, jobs, property values), land use, community level concerns, local environment and global issues are interrelated. It because this study tackles public discourse on the energy issues, which I think, calls for network analysis. When the author (s) thinks it is not possible to analyze, considering the structure of the data, the analysis is at the author (s)’ option.

The small point is that the resolution of the figures is very low.

Author Response

Replies are attached via PDF. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I give the positive “yellow” light to the article provided I will have a chance to read the article once more in the revision cycle and decide finally. The reason for such conditional support is due to the problems with reading the tables and figures. The quality of the tables and figures made it no possible to study them. A good example of such poor readability is fig.1 in which the legend remains a mystery. The explanation in the text helps a little to speculate what is in the graphical material but I would be much unprofessional to rely on my guess.

The methodology applied consists of reviewing local newspapers and value different aspects related to large scale solar farms of utility dimension. It is not very often applied research method in technical sciences and therefore receive more justification and description to prove its correctness. The process of evaluation of the articles is partly subjective which is a weak element of this approach. I suggest commenting more on the necessary conditions that are required to securing scientific neutrality (objectiveness) and minimise risks and uncertainties that the applied methodology of reviewing local newspaper may cause. More literature on this method to justify its correctness to analyse the case discussed.

“Additionally, each article is classified as positive, negative, neutral, or mixed in respect to utility-scale solar projects”. How are the labels are given? What were the criteria of such classification? Were they given subjectively? For example, how was the category "positive" defined? Positive in what respect and to whom, in favour to whom or to what.

Did the period of research coincide with any major solar project or public discussion on solar farm development? Was the period "stormy" time or a time of flauta (business as usual)? Were there other circumstances, e.g. political election, economic stagnation, which might affect the research in any way, and bias the results?

The authors provided a list of weaknesses of the article and proposed further research topics. This approach helps the reader to better understand the limitations of the research presented.

Conclusions are rather generic and poor and lack scientific soundness. I recommend providing more concrete political recommendations if the authors aim at shaping a bit the political attitude to the large-scale solar technology.

The affiliation of the authors cannot be deciphered from the e-mail addresses. Consider providing full affiliations if it is not confidential.

Author Response

Replies are attached via PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

• The paper is well conceptualized, structured and written. 
• The visibility of the diagrams have to be checked/improved (the current PDF form does not provide enough visibility/readability level of diagrams). 
• The readability of tables should be checked/ improved (the current PDF form does not provide enough visibility/readability level of tables). 

• Names of tables and diagrams should contain full names for abbreviations used  (or explanations should appear within the diagrams themselves, i.e. tables: e.g. MI, MN, etc.)

• In the introduction, greater importance should be given to the topic of the paper by: 1) listing more research that emphasized the importance of the social aspect, in addition to the economic and environmental aspect of sustainability, and 2) briefly writting impacts of utility scale solar– both beneficial and adverse – through mentioning / citing few relevant papers (e.g. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.041).  In the conclusion put the more importance of this topic/paper by additionally adding 1-2 sentences focusing on importance of social / community aspect.

• I suggest you cite few papers in which the problem of the aesthetic aspect of solar plants/panels is discussed.
• You might consider completing the work with an image of typical systems or some of the plants mentioned in the paper (this is rather a suggestion than a requirement).

Author Response

Replies are attached via PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf