Market-Specific Barriers and Enablers for Organizational Investments in Solar PV—Lessons from Flanders

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

File is attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The research paper is convenient for the scope of of the special issue : Sustainable Development in the Context of Renewable Energy at Different Scales. The content of the paper is valuable from the theoretical and practical point of view. The aim of research is clear. The title of scientific article is clear and it sufficiently reflects content. The abstract is informative. In the manuscript are some irregularities which need corrections:

1.       At the end of the introduction, I recommend emphasizing the main aim of the research.

2.       In the conclusion, I recommend adding the main benefits of research for practice.

3.       I recommend do not use abbreviations in the abstract and key words.

4.       Title of figure 1 (line 138) should be below the image. The word Figure   1  should be in bold and The chart is missing axis descriptions.

5.       Authors cited 112 articles. I recommend deleting the self-citations of author Wim Van Opstal, lines 821, 939, 975, 1064.

GENERAL JUDGEMENT

The paper is acceptable for publication after minor revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presented is a case study type research on Market-specific barriers and enablers organizational investment in Solar PV based on a place in Belgium. The study is done based on different sets of field data taken by Authors.

The research looks convincing. Some minor corrections needed though.

For Fig.1, axes names are missing.

Study parameters must be mentioned clearly. Some empirical barriers may have been named taken from some standard literature.

Some future scopes of study may also be highlighted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors proposed the Article Title “Market-specific Barriers and Enablers for Organizational Investments in Solar PV. Lessons from Flanders”. The following comments should be incorporated into the manuscript:

1. The heading of 3 should be changed with appropriate work.

2. Abbreviations should be incorporated into the manuscript.

3. What’s new in the manuscript; the comparative analysis should be done in favour of novel work with existing technological work.

4. What are the research gaps according to these investigations?

5. Graphical representation of your investigation should be there in the introduction section.

 

6. Formatting of the manuscript must be there according to Journal Guidelines.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1.      Remove the last sentence in line 159.

2.      Suggestion to add a diagram to show split incentives examples.

3.      Remove “in” in line 889.

4.      Suggestion to change section 4.1 in line 887 from “Lesson Learned” to “Focus Group Outcome”.

 

5.      Suggestion to add a list of abbreviations. 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions.

I suppose that comments 1 and 3 are probably based on a misunderstanding since the track changes manuscript shows an "Error! Reference source not found" message instead of a correct reference to Figure 1 and Table 1. Therefore, I can understand the sentences you refer to look awkward and incorrect. Nevertheless, when correct references to Figure 1 and Table 1 are included, these sentences do make sense. I will double check this issue in the proof-reading phase.

I included diagrams on the first two split incentive problems in Appendix C. and double checked with several non-expert readers whether is it clear. The split incentive problem between social housing associations and public authorities, however, depends too much on local institutional parameters (even within a region like Flanders, let alone across regions) to depict in one single diagram.

Comment 4 on "lessons learned": this subtitle was a bit too vague indeed. Instead, we used the subtitle "barriers and enablers", since this subsection discusses the barriers and enablers, including an overview table across market segments.

Comment 5: we included a list of abbreviations.