Analysis of the Community Acceptance Factors for Potential Wind Energy Projects in Greece
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper identifies the Assessment of the social acceptance for the development of Wind Parks. The subject is interesting.
However, Minor revision must be done before publication:
1. Firstly, I not find the title very unique. Assessment of the social acceptance for the development of Wind Parks.
2. In the introduction section, mention the scope and research gap of the study.
3. In this paper, the review of literature section is missing. Please mention some previous research.
4. Create a separate section on limitations and future scope of study
Author Response
Dear Reviewer thank you. Our response is kindly attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. In the Abstract I do not see precise information on the article’s results.
2. The materials and methods should be explained in more detail.
3. The hypothesis needs to be veryfied by the results.
4. The hypothesis needs to be accepted / rejected in the conclusions.
5. Why were these methods used in order to examine the materials and the research sources?
6. There is a lack on information: why were the implemented methods appropriate for the research?
7. I suggest to create a table with an explanation of the methodology used.
8. Where are the questionnaire questions? They should be placed in the Appendix!
9. Instead of putting table 1, I suggest to create a table according to the PRISM procedure (lines: 258-260).
10. I recommend to re-thing the idea of putting figure 2 in the text (lines: 273-274).
11. I strongly recommend to re-think the idea of setting figures 3-13 in the text.
The text of the article is too long!
12. Can the article's content be presented in a more reader-friendly way, in a more multi-leveled, multi-faced, compressed way?
13. What are the limitations of the methods used in the paper?
14. How these limitations can be decreased/omitted?
15. How, in a practical way, the results of the study can be used by Greeks?
16. How the results can be, in a measureable way, used for the Greek population?
Positives:
The topic of the article is important and worthy of addressing. As a researcher, I came across it personally while staying in Greece.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer thank you. Our response is kindly attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1) It will be better to build the article close to the scientific style (to avoid the art style of presentation) and structure2) In p.2, after the literature review, better to systemize the studied pros and cons of the wind parks for different groups of stakeholders
3) In the "methodology part" the paragraphs are duplicated (lines 203-230 and lines 231-258)
4) Figure 1 is quite bulky and doesn't have the scientific novelty
5) Figure 2 also has to be rebuilt
6) Figure 3 is not so informative. It doesn't have scientific criteria "Very negative", "negative" etc. What kind of measure?
7) The all-next figures (in Appendix A) also have to be rebuilt. It will be better to do their less and to compose between.
8) There is no link for figure 14. It also must be changed, because it is not comfortable to read and understand.
9) The findings from this study have to encourage further research and some managerial solutions. The authors should consider it in their conclusions.
10) The number of figures and tables in the appendix must be reduced.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer thank you. Our response is kindly attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is an interesting study. The paper is well-written and organized.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer thank you very much for your kind support and trust.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have carefully read your manuscript. I am happy for the changes made to it.
Please, do not forget to:
1. to place in the methodology section information on " (...) The sample chosen is representative of the target population and the variables used/transferred are qualitative measure on a Likert scale. In general, a comment was added in the conclusions as a useful for further research followup The sample chosen is representative of the target population and the variables used/transferred are qualitative measure on a Likert scale",
2. What / and where / is the explanation for the research methodology in lines 232-234:
"(...) The finalized questionnaire was distributed electronically during March/April - 2021. 232 One of the main concerns was to reach areas with wind farms, as well as groups with a 233 negative view towards wind farms and RES in general".
Best wishes!
Your reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1) The title of the paper isn't scientific, it must emphasize the main scientific purpose of the article
2) All figures in the paper are still quite big and bulky. They must be rebuilt in the manner of the scientific publication
Author Response
Please see the file attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
