A Comprehensive Approach to the Governance of Universal Access to Sustainable Energy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1) Abstracts usually have the following structure: introduction, goal, methodology, results and conclusion. I do recommend an abstract improvement to make the research clearer.

2) Authors should relate clearer case studies (tables) to the text. Also, how do case studies contribute to solving problems shown by authors? I do recommend including a paragraph that makes it clearer.

2.1)  How do cases were chosen by the authors?  I do recommend adding paragraphs that make it clearer.

3) Regarding the Brazilian case, which references were used?

4) Also, in the Ethiopia case, which references were used?

5) The authors must add more details and information about the limitations of the methodology they have reached in the manuscript, where multiple studies represent how the same methodology appears to have its limitations because this is a significant point.

6) The Conclusion section should be separate from the Discussion.

7) In the conclusion section of the manuscript, the authors must add more details about the future improvements of the suggested methodology in light of the methodology of the manuscript.

 

Author Response

As also detailed in the attached cover letter, the revised manuscript includes (1) an update of the abstract according to the proposed structure. (2) A footnote has been added to explain the purpose of the selected study cases and to more clearly link them to each quadrant focus. (3) and (4) Additional references have been provided for the study cases. (5) The methodology and its limitations have been explained in more detail. (6) The conclusions and discussion sections have been separated and thoroughly revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

There are also a large number of editing errors in the text.

The paper is a good contribution to the literature in general and has the potential to be accepted. I suggest some corrections to improve clarity as follows.

Comment 1: The aim and the novelty should be strengthened in the abstract.

Comment 2: In general, the methodology should be explained in greater detail (Section 2)

Comment 3: A more complete analysis of the results should be conducted.

Comment 4: The conclusion should be an independent part of the paper and should not be presented together with the discussions.

Comment 5: In order to enable readers to understand this paper well, case studies require further in-depth discussions and explained with the corresponding Figures.

Comment 6: There are also a large number of editing errors in the text.

Comment 7: Introduction section should be improved.

Comment 8: A more complete literature review should be carried out.

Author Response

As also detailed in the attached cover letter, the revised manuscript includes (1) a revised abstract and introduction that more clearly states the novelty of the conceptual approach. (2) The methodological approach has been more clearly described. (3) The results have been revised and supplemented according to the focus of the paper. (4) The conclusions and discussion sections were separated and thoroughly revised. (5) The paper explained that the case studies were provided to illustrate specific aspects of each quadrant. It is beyond our purpose here to analyze them in more depth, but additional references have been provided that allow for this deeper analysis. (6) The text has been thoroughly revised for errors and English improvements. (7) The introductory section has been expanded to include additional relevant literature.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the paper, the authors have proposed a multi-stakeholder governance framework and decision-making circular roadmap for universal access to modern energy services. The proposed approach is illustrated as a circular framework. The framework is based on the authors' findings and the experience of the members of the Universal Access Laboratory.

The paper is constructed well. The methodology is well-explained. Relevant references are provided.

However, my minor concern/suggestion is:

 

1.       The developed framework is not supported by simulation results/surveys/graphs. The framework is based on the authors' findings and the experience of the members of the Universal Access Laboratory. The paper may be published as a report/communication, not a research article.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his/her comments and insights. In this revised version, the Introduction and Methodology sections have been expanded to provide more detail on the research approach. However, the results are mostly a compilation of several other studies and projects, each with a specific methodology. What is presented in this article is mainly the result of the authors' insider research, synthesizing the conclusions and findings of these various projects, and proposing as a result a comprehensive framework with the aim of contributing to the development of actionable electrification strategies, mainly including not only the institutional and techno-economic methodologies, but also the approach of incorporating the cultural perspectives and values that could help drive these strategies. In any case, we also intend to publish a working paper that will provide additional details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper shows some interest in the sustainable energy field; Thus, it can be published in the Journal of Sustainability after minor revision.

Here are some comments to improve the quality of the manuscript.

1-      The manuscript contains some misprints, grammar, and syntax mistakes.

2-      The review lack of pictorial representation,

3-      The quality (resolution) of Figure 2 should be improved.

 

4-      In the conclusion section, I recommend discussing the four quadrants as a connected section instead of bullets.

The English of the manuscript can be improved. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their comments and insights. (1) The paper has been thoroughly revised for English language, errors and typos. (2) The introduction and methodology sections including the state of the art have been revised and expanded, although a figure was not found feasible. (3) Figure 2 was replaced by another example with much better resolution. (4) The Conclusions section has been rewritten to avoid bullet points.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors respected all comments and made a major revision of the manuscript.

The quality of English is good.