A Multicriteria Decision Framework for Solar Power Plant Location Selection Problem with Pythagorean Fuzzy Data: A Case Study on Green Energy in Turkey
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A specific result should be given at the end of the abstract. What does the paper offer?
The literature review seems narrow. The paper should focus on the existing articles based on the problem and methodology. A table to compare the literature should be fine. The contributions of the paper should be given item by item.
What is the reason for choosing SWARA and Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS?
Managerial insights are missing. Some extra analysis is needed to provide practical issues.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1964749
Title: A multi-criteria decision framework for solar power plant location selection problem with Pythagorean fuzzy data: a case study on green energy in Turkey
Please find enclosed a revised version of our manuscript for you to further consider for publication. I was very pleased by the positive comments from the reviewers and have revised the paper in response to all the suggestions.
A full response to each comment is provided below while key changes are also highlighted using Red text within the manuscript.
I would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for their contributions to improving the quality of this manuscript and hope that they will now find the paper suitable for publication in the journal of Sustainability.
Reviewer 1: Comments and Response
Thank you for these positive comments and we appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript. The paper has been carefully revised in response to the comments raised. I believe that the revision and changes improved the quality of the manuscript.
A specific result should be given at the end of the abstract. What does the paper offer?
The abstract was modified to improve the quality of the paper. The changes were highlighted in that section.
The literature review seems narrow. The paper should focus on the existing articles based on the problem and methodology. A table to compare the literature should be fine. The contributions of the paper should be given item by item.
The literature review section was edited to improve the quality of the paper. New related studies were added and the changes were highlighted in that section. Also, a table is added to compare some of the remarkable studies.
What is the reason for choosing SWARA and Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS?
The reason for using the SWARA is that the method allows decision-makers to choose their priorities and includes objective opinions rather than a compulsory scale in the ranking of the criteria. SWARA method is widely used in the literature in different weighting problems. It is also used for some energy researches.
As a generalization of an intuitionistic fuzzy set, the Pythagorean fuzzy set is interesting and very useful in modeling uncertain information in real-world decision-making problems. In this study, uncertainty is one of the concerns. The combination of this method with TOPSIS helps the decision maker to rank and select the most beneficial alternative/s. Since in practical life decision-making, problems may not have an ideal (optimal) solution, TOPSIS method attempts to choose the alternative which has the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution and the farthest distance from the negative ideal solution.
Managerial insights are missing. Some extra analysis is needed to provide practical issues.
For this purpose and to improve the quality of the study a new section is added, and in this section, a sensitivity analysis was done to examine the effects of changes in the weights of criteria on the obtained results. Different scenarios were considered, and the results were presented accordingly.
Reviewer 2 Report
In lines 216,217 you mention: One of the main contributions and novelty of this research is the comparison and investigation on new criteria which have not been used before. This task cannot support novelty. The value of this addition is not somehow proven.
Also in line 296 you say: Later On, Zhang and Xu proposed an extended TOPSIS to MCDM with Pythagorean fuzzy sets and this decision-making approach is described in this section. The realization of a proposed by others methodological framework is not innovative.
I think that the main contribution of the paper is the knowledge base that you have built. I think that you must focus on this aspect of the paper.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1964749
Title: A multi-criteria decision framework for solar power plant location selection problem with Pythagorean fuzzy data: a case study on green energy in Turkey
Please find enclosed a revised version of our manuscript for you to further consider for publication. I was very pleased by the positive comments from the reviewers and have revised the paper in response to all the suggestions.
A full response to each comment is provided below while key changes are also highlighted using Red text within the manuscript.
I would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for their contributions to improving the quality of this manuscript and hope that they will now find the paper suitable for publication in the journal of Sustainability.
Reviewer 2: Comments and Response
Thank you for the observation. I believe that the revision and changes improved the quality of the manuscript.
In lines 216,217 you mention: One of the main contributions and novelty of this research is the comparison and investigation on new criteria which have not been used before. This task cannot support novelty. The value of this addition is not somehow proven.
Considering a new criterion (C10) in this research is one of the novelties of this study in terms of criteria selection. However, there are other contributions and novelties of this research that are demonstrated and emphasized throughout the paper. For instance, to deal with uncertainty in the data, Pythagorean fuzzy set is used which is interesting and very useful in modeling uncertain information in real-world decision-making problems. Also, in weighting criteria, SWARA is considered, which assists decision-makers with the opportunity to choose their priorities and includes objective opinions rather than a compulsory scale in the ranking of the criteria.
Also in line 296 you say: Later On, Zhang and Xu proposed an extended TOPSIS to MCDM with Pythagorean fuzzy sets and this decision-making approach is described in this section. The realization of a proposed by others methodological framework is not innovative.
As mentioned earlier, this study aims to find the best location for new solar power plant/s in the nominated cities in Turkey according to some given criteria, and not developing a new mathematical model. For this aim, one of the most appropriate and practical approaches is Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS, which assists decision-makers to find a solution for practical life decision-making problems. Specifically, when uncertainty is one of the concerns. The PFS is one of the most successful sets, in terms of representing comprehensively uncertain and vague information
As a matter of fact, this study proposes (designs) and presents a methodological framework that would assist decision maker/s to decide about the location selection of solar power plant. Though these methods have been proposed before and there are some other methodologies available, I believe that it is still the appropriate method for evaluating this case study. The proposed method has many attractive features. It includes dataset, expert’s weights, and score function (closeness), in which all of these features are expressed by Pythagorean fuzzy sets PFS.
Also, in the revised sections (abstract, introduction, and conclusion) the novelty of the research was emphasized.
I think that the main contribution of the paper is the knowledge base that you have built. I think that you must focus on this aspect of the paper.
Great point, thanks for pointing this out. I tried to modify the paper accordingly. In addition, A new section was added for sensitivity Analysis, improving the contribution of the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
This article needs important modifications to be suitable for this journal. I suggest major revision for this paper. The main comments are:
- The novelty of this paper should be further justified and to establish the contributions to the new body of knowledge.
- Abstract section should be improved considering the following structure: introduction, problem statement, methodology, results, and conclusion.
- In Introduction section, the authors should improve the research background, the review of significant works in the specific study area, the knowledge gap, the problem statement, and the novelty of the research.
- The presentation of the results and conclusions were not enough; it should be highlighted.
- The problem or MCDM method applied requires the expert to judge or make a decision. The results of decision directly depend on the expert, so the qualification of experts must be clearly presented.
- Authors should state limitations/Assumptions of the Pythagorean fuzzy method that they used in this study.
- It is very interesting to compare the obtained results with other proposed methodologies or techniques like intuitionistic fuzzy Topsis or neutrosphic fuzzy TOPSIS. etc
- The application of MCDM to the focused problem is still weak. There are many MCDM methods that can be used for solving this problem. Why did the study need to apply the proposed methods? What are the strengths of applied methods compared to other methods?
- A sensitivity analysis is missing.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1964749
Title: A multi-criteria decision framework for solar power plant location selection problem with Pythagorean fuzzy data: a case study on green energy in Turkey
Please find enclosed a revised version of our manuscript for you to further consider for publication. I was very pleased by the positive comments from the reviewers and have revised the paper in response to all the suggestions.
A full response to each comment is provided below while key changes are also highlighted using Red text within the manuscript.
I would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for their contributions to improving the quality of this manuscript and hope that they will now find the paper suitable for publication in the journal of Sustainability.
Reviewer 3: Comments and Response
Thank you for these positive comments and we appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript. The paper has been carefully revised in response to the comments raised.
The novelty of this paper should be further justified and to establish the contributions to the new body of knowledge.
As Turkey is one of the most suitable countries due to its significant location in terms of receiving solar radiation and is planning to expand its solar power plant system to fulfill increasing energy demand, this study evaluates potential cities in southern Turkey to install new solar power plant subject to different criteria with uncertain nature. Criteria were selected based on past research and a new criterion was considered (C10) which has not been used before in literature to obtain a more accurate result. Since uncertainty is one of the concerns in fuzzy logic, the Pythagorean fuzzy set is very useful in modeling uncertain information in real-world decision-making problems that can combine with MCDM. Also, the proposed solution methodology can be guided and used by the decision maker for different data set of different geographical region. To the best of my knowledge, the combination of the criteria and the proposed methodology have not been used before by any research for solar power plant site selection, specifically in the case of turkey.
- Abstract section should be improved considering the following structure: introduction, problem statement, methodology, results, and conclusion.
The abstract was modified completely to improve the quality of the paper, and a new abstract was added.
- In Introduction section, the authors should improve the research background, the review of significant works in the specific study area, the knowledge gap, the problem statement, and the novelty of the research.
The introduction and literature review sections were modified to improve the quality of the paper. New related studies were added, and the changes were highlighted in that section. Also, in the revised sections (abstract, introduction, and conclusion) the novelty of the research was emphasized.
- The presentation of the results and conclusions were not enough; it should be highlighted.
More details about the results were presented in the results discussion and conclusion part.
- The problem or MCDM method applied requires the expert to judge or make a decision. The results of decision directly depend on the expert, so the qualification of experts must be clearly presented.
6 experts participated in this study, and they are proficient in their fields. The list of experts with their careers, role position, field, and education are as follows:
- Expert 1 with a Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering, and a specialist in renewable energy. Research area: Solar Energy system, Thermodynamics, and Heat transfer.
- Expert 2 with a Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering. Research interests: Energy Transition, Renewable Energy, Net Zero Energy, Smart Grids/ Homes/ Cities.
- Expert 3 with a Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering. Research area: Thermodynamics and Thermo-economic Analysis of Energy Systems and Internal Combustion Engines.
- Expert 4 with a Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering. Research area: Energy systems, Haptics, and Mechatronics
- Expert 5 with a Ph.D. degree in industrial engineering, a specialist in Operations Management, Data Analysis, and Optimization.
- Expert 6 with a Ph.D. degree in industrial engineering, and a specialist in decision-making. Research interests: Optimization Techniques, Multi-Criteria Decision making, and Experimental Design.
- Authors should state limitations/Assumptions of the Pythagorean fuzzy method that they used in this study.
While some of the important assumptions and limitations are listed below, the details information regarding assumptions and limitations is discussed in section 2 (Basic concepts Pythagorean fuzzy sets and membership grades)
- The Pythagorean fuzzy sets (PFS) is one of the most successful sets, in terms of representing comprehensively uncertain and vague information. it can offer a better alternative particularly when fuzzy sets have some extent of limitations in handling vagueness and uncertainty
- In terms of fuzzy logic, the Pythagorean fuzzy set is very useful in modeling uncertain information in real-world decision-making problems that can combine with MCDM.
- The advantage of proposing PFSs is that in real-life decision-making, the sum of the membership degree and non-membership degree might be bigger than 1 but their sum of the square is less than or equal. (the PFS is characterized by a membership degree and non-membership degree where the square sum of its membership degree and non-membership degree is less than or equal to one)
- The PFS also was successfully integrated with the concepts of confidence level and decision-making with probabilities.
- Finding the probability of membership and nonmembership would be difficult to calculate.
- The proposed method has several attractive features which include linguistic variables, expert weights, and score function, in which all of these features are expressed by PFS.
- It is very interesting to compare the obtained results with other proposed methodologies or techniques like intuitionistic fuzzy Topsis or neutrosphic fuzzy TOPSIS. Etc
Thank you for the observation and suggestions. The methodologies can be applied to this case study in a feature study with the help of other researchers.
- The application of MCDM to the focused problem is still weak. There are many MCDM methods that can be used for solving this problem. Why did the study need to apply the proposed methods? What are the strengths of applied methods compared to other methods?
Regarding weighting the criteria, using the SWARA is that the method allows decision-makers to choose their priorities and includes objective opinions rather than a compulsory scale in the ranking of the criteria. SWARA method is widely used in the literature, specifically for some energy research.
For evaluating the alternatives, As a generalization of intuitionistic fuzzy set, the Pythagorean fuzzy set is interesting and very useful in modeling uncertain information in real-world decision-making problems. In this study, uncertainty is one of the concerns. The combination of this method with TOPSIS helps the decision maker to rank and select the most beneficial alternative/s. Since in practical life decision-making problems, usually do not exist any ideal (optimal) solution, the TOPSIS method attempts to choose the alternatives which have the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution and the farthest distance from the negative ideal solution. Finally, The advantage of proposing PFSs is that in real-life decision-making, the sum of the membership degree and non-membership degree might be bigger than 1 but their sum of the square is less than or equal to 1. In other words, the space of the Pythagorean membership degree is greater than the space of the intuitionistic membership degree.
- A sensitivity analysis is missing.
For this purpose and to improve the quality of the study a new section is added, and in this section, a sensitivity analysis was done to examine the effects of changes in the weights of criteria on the obtained results. Different scenarios were considered, and the results were presented accordingly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you, I suggest to accept this paper.
