A Comparative Analysis of the Impacts and Resilience of the Electricity Supply Industry against COVID-19 Restrictions in the United Kingdom, Malawi, and Uganda
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study analyzed their impacts on the operations, investments, and policies within the electricity supply industry (ESI) for the United Kingdom, Malawi, and Uganda. The study demonstrates the necessity of evaluating resilience with respect to local development commitments. Moreover, several measures were proposed to enhance ESIs’ resilience mainly through organizational measures meant to ensure business continuity in the event of future pandemics.
The introduction needs reframing, in its current style, it is not consistent and informative. to do this task follow the stages of background: in which you should talk about the importance of the topic, literature: you should review the previous publications in this field, Research gaps: talk about the gaps in previous research and the necessity of your own, aims: present your aims to fill the gaps of research, structure: mention the structure of your paper.
A flowchart is needed in the method section to clearly explain the stream of your methodology.
Then a discussion section is needed and you should compare your finding with other sources and compare the methods with each other.
The conclusion should be A summary of the paper, highlights of your results and general conclusions from those findings, limitations of the research, and recommendations for future research.
Some references to be considered are mentioned below:
Norouzi, N., de Rubens, G. Z., Choupanpiesheh, S., & Enevoldsen, P. (2020). When pandemics impact economies and climate change: Exploring the impacts of COVID-19 on oil and electricity demand in China. Energy Research & Social Science, 68, 101654. Norouzi, N., Zarazua de Rubens, G. Z., Enevoldsen, P., & Behzadi Forough, A. (2021). The impact of COVID‐19 on the electricity sector in Spain: An econometric approach based on prices. International Journal of Energy Research, 45(4), 6320-6332.
Author Response
Point 1: Introduction needs reframing to include importance of the topic, existing literature, research gaps, the necessity of our own research, aims to fill the gaps and paper structure.
Response 1: The introduction has been rewritten following the guidelines you provided. Lines 45- 51 of the revised manuscript stipulate the major findings of previous studies. In addition, Line 53-62 state the overarching assumptions and methodologies within existing literature. The gaps within existing literature and necessity of our study are mentioned in Line 64-72. The aim and objectives of study, and our contribution to existing knowledge are detailed in Lines 73-86.
Point 2: Flow chart is needed in the methods section.
Response 2: Please refer to Figure 2 for the conceptual framework of the study and find the rationale briefly explained in Line 93-101. Section 2, details a multi-phase approach of how the study was conducted.
Point 3: Discussion section is needed to compare your findings with other sources and compare the methods.
Response 3: We based our article on published public data and previous studies. To that end, we’ve cited all sources which agree (e.g., Line 706-707) or contrasts (e.g., Line 219-221, Line 383-385) with our findings. However, our research is unique to the extent that it is assessing the resilience of electricity supply industry on development outcomes. To this end, no study can be explicitly compared to ours. Nevertheless, in Line 67-69 we mention previous studies that are closely linked to ours and the gaps that make them incomparable.
Point 4: Conclusion should be a summary of findings, limitations and recommendations for future research.
Response 3: The conclusion has been completely rewritten following the provided guideline
Point 5: Consider these references
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101654
- https://doi.org/10.1002/er.6259
Response 3: The papers have been reviewed and their methods and findings have been used to reinforce our study. Please see references [13] and [14] in Line 55-59.
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have presented an interesting and revealing study of the resilience capacities, during the COVID-19 pandemic, of the electricity supply industry in Uganda, Malawi, and the United Kingdom. Additionally, a series of detailed consequence metrics related to electricity access in 2020 contrasted to 2019 data was also discussed. This reviewer considers that the manuscript, in general, is well written and clear. Data sources have been clearly referenced. Also, the paper displays convincing/potential explanations to what could have caused one phenomenon or the other. Authors have made an important effort to provide meaningful discussions to data. However, this reviewer wants to provide some comments below:- Line 67. Reference error.
- Figure 1 is not referenced within the text. Does it add value to the manuscript?.
- A few type errors must be corrected.
- Line 129. The concept of reliability is significantly different to the common definition. It is generally defined as the capacity of a system to deliver energy over a certain period of time. A numeric indicator is the probability of loss of power supply. Can you relate this kind of concept to the one used in the manuscript?
- State clearly the list of contributions.
- Discuss the applicability of these types of studies to other countries.
Author Response
Point 1: Line 67 has a Reference Error.
Response 1: This has been rectified
Point 2: Figure 1 not referenced and might not be necessary.
Response 2: The figure has been removed
Point 3: Discuss the relation of reliability used in the manuscript to the conventional concept.
Response 3: The reliability concept as used in our study specifically relates to the Multi-Tier Framework for energy access by Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP)[1] in which reliability is one of the attributes for energy access. In this schema, reliability is measured by the frequency and length of unpredictable outages. This clarification has been added in Line 131-132 of the revised manuscript.
Point 4: State clearly the list of the paper’s contribution
Response 4: Please refer to Line 81-86 of the revised manuscript.
Point 5: Discuss the applicability of this study to other countries.
Response 5: Please refer to Line 554-557, 724-726, and 738-740 regarding applicability in other countries. The methods and proposed indicators of measuring impacts, resilience and development outcomes are generic and can be applied to all countries and with respect to most disruptive events.
[1] M. Bhatia and N. Angelou, “Beyond Connections: Energy Access Redefined,” Washington DC, USA, 2015.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors are comparing apples and oranges.
It is not clear what is the purpose-as, it is obvious that UK, a high income country will do better under any circumstances than low come countries, such as Malawi and Uganda.
delete line 77-79
delete Fig. 1 and revise Fig. numbers and write-up.
Fig. 2 should come after its mention.
Fig. 3-not clear-give a table indicating the lock down days of each country-how is UK lock down days given-there are 4 countries?
The article is covering COVID, electricity, SDG& and etc. too much wide.
Lockdowns started only in 2020.
so, in line 165-comapring lockdowns of 2019 and 2020 are not correct.
talk about 2020 lockdown days and compare the impacts with 2019-during when there is no lockdown.
compare Uganda vs Malawi-apples to apples.
then UK vs---apples to oranges.
normally we don't compare apples vs oranges.
reduce the verbage-just be succinct and focused.
Author Response
Point 1: Not clear the purpose is since UK will do better than Malawi and Uganda.
Response 1: The premise that the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on electricity industry were less severe in the UK compared to Uganda and Malawi, was contrary to our findings. In fact one the gaps the study identified was the lack of comparisons of countries with varying economic status. Please refer to Table 1 in which we summarised for several metrics. The UK outcomes were poorer than Malawi and Uganda’s in relation to commercial consumption, electricity revenues, generation capacity etc. In Table 2, we show that the UK had the worst absorption of the pandemic shocks and had the slowest recovery of its demand. This is because the severity of restrictions weighed heavily on the electricity industry operations than the size of the economy.
Point 2: Delete line 77-79.
Response 2: The sentence has been rewritten as seen in Line 87-91 of the revised manuscript. Other reviewers specifically asked for its improvement.
Point 3: Delete Fig. 1.
Response 3: Deleted
Point 4: Fig. 3 not clear, perhaps a table could be used.
Response 4: Figure resolution has been improved
Point 5: How were the UK lockdown days determined given that there 4 countries within the UK.
Response 5: The days presented in the figure (previously fig 2 and now fig 1) are those which were binding on all territories within the UK. This clarification has been added in Line 176-177.
Point 6: The article’s scope is too wide covering COVID, electricity and SDGs.
Response 6: The study follows a logical thread; the pandemic restrictions affected the electricity industry which in turn had consequences on development outcomes of each country. Our study was motivated by the gaps within previous studies which were mostly system-centric and were not concerned with the ultimate service that the system provides; which is the improvement of people’s welfare.
Point 7: Line 165 is comparing lockdowns in 2019 and 2020 but lockdowns only started in 2020.
Response 7: This has been rectified and the sentence rewritten. See Line 178-181.
Point 8: Talk about 2020 lockdown days and compare the impacts with 2019 when there was no lockdown.
Response 8: This was the major premise of our study. To this effect, we have made explicit explanations in Line 158-161, 434-441, and 525-530.
Point 9: Comparing UK to either Uganda or Malawi is comparing apples to oranges.
Response 9: Please refer to Response 1. In addition, the study compares similar entities, apples to apples, i.e., electricity supply industry of three countries. The level of development and severity of lockdowns are simply variables which were investigated to ascertain how they affected the level of resilience of the electricity industry and the relevant development outcomes on the wider society.
Point 10: Reduce the verbiage and be succinct.
Response 10: Several portions of the article have been revised and sentences were made more direct.
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for your work. I have found the paper well written. The arguments of the paper are clear and the indicators use for the assessment are reasonable. I have found a minor error that it is not significant.
Author Response
The manuscript has been revised and several grammatical errors have been correted.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
small rise, was low and all mean nothing-need %s-in abstract, intro, and conclusions too
Author Response
The abstract has been completely rewritten to reflect the reviewer’s comments. Their suggestion can also been seen implemented in the introduction (Line 49-51) and Conclusions (Line 733-743). 'Line' is in reference to the resubmitted manuscript.
