Navigating the Nexus: Stakeholder Engagement in Hybrid Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper gives interesting insights for the use of power purchase agreements (PPAs) as a tools for the harmonization of grid stability and the reliability of energy provisioning.

Some practical examples could further support the evidences that are deduced by the SLR investigation for sake of clarity.

The approach is consistent and based on previous literature.

Author Response

Reviewer #1

R1.1.: The paper gives interesting insights for the use of power purchase agreements (PPAs) as tools for the harmonization of grid stability and the reliability of energy provisioning.

Some practical examples could further support the evidence that are deduced by the SLR investigation for sake of clarity.

The approach is consistent and based on previous literature.

Our response: We thank the Reviewer for the encouraging comment as well as for the suggestion. To improve clarity, we have provided some practical examples in Section 5, ensuring that the readers can clearly understand the implications of PPAs in the context of grid stability and energy reliability:

“Practical examples that illustrate the implications of PPAs in enhancing grid stability and energy reliability are shown through various real-life case studies. Numerous utility-scale solar PPAs have been conducted in Europe in which a utility enters a long-term PPA with a solar farm developer. The predictable output from the solar farm helps the utility manage grid stability by integrating renewable energy into the grid more effectively. The PPA ensures reliable energy provisioning by providing a steady source of clean energy. Another “popular” PPA includes wind energy projects with energy storage (hybrid PPAs). The concept is structured under a PPA in which a utility procures wind energy from a wind farm operator along with energy storage services. The combination of intermittent wind energy and battery helps to smooth out fluctuations in renewable energy generation. The PPA contractually ensures that stored energy can be dispatched during peak demand periods, thereby contributing to grid stability and reliability. Additionally, corporate renewable PPAs in which a large corporate entity enters into a bilateral agreement with a wind or solar developer, are widespread across Europe. Such agreements incentivize the development of renewable energy projects and contribute to grid stability by diversifying energy sources, The PPA allows the corporate entity to secure long-term price certainty and reliable energy supply, supporting their sustainability goals while benefiting the broader grid stability. Finally, less common but also important for grid stability through distributed generation and demand response strategies, are community based PPAs. A community based PPA involves a local government or community organization partnering with renew-able energy developers. The PPA fosters local energy resilience by decentralizing energy production and promoting community involvement in energy management.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overview:

This submission examines the role of community and stakeholder engagement in the hybrid renewable energy power purchase agreements (PPAs). This examination is carried out using a systematic literature review analysis.

In my opinion, the paper’s topic is interesting. Since the scope and aims of the paper are aligned with the ones of Sustainability, I encourage the authors to improve the quality of the paper according to the comments below.  

Comments:

*   The paper is well-written, however it still contains errors. Therefore, it is strongly recommended proofreading the paper once more. For example:    

- In line 32 on page 1, please include the appropriate proposition after "revolution lies".

*   It is advisable to include "and" between author names prior to their respective reference number. For example:  

 - On page 4, please replace "Stanitsas, Kirytopoulos [22]" with "Stanitsas and Kirytopoulos".    

- On page 23, please replace "Aladpoosh, Shaharoun [23]" with "Aladpoosh and Shaharoun [23]"

*  In keywords, the authors included terms, e.g., PPAs, which are already provided in Title and Abstract. It is advisable to include different keywords to improve paper indexing in databases, such as Scholar and Scopus.

* In Section 2, the authors provided a literature review on the topic discussed. It is not clear whether the cited papers are related works or selected through the systematic literature review (SLR) approach. In the case of the latter, the authors should consider moving Section 2 below Section 3.

* In Section 3, the authors described the used SLR process. However, several details are omitted, including the logical operators between the keywords and paper inclusion/exclusion criteria. The authors should provide such details. Furthermore, it is advisable to briefly describe for readers the research design steps depicted in Figure 2.

* In the same section, the research questions are defined for this review paper. It is advisable to include these questions in Introduction since they define the aim and scope of the paper.

* On page 4, it is stated that one of the aims of the SLR is to provide insights on themes found in the relevant literature. Such insights, however, are not provided throughout the paper. Thus, it is advisable to present the themes of reviewed literature in Section 5. Moreover, the authors should consider categorizing the reviewed publications according to the identified themes.

* In Section 5, it is not clear whether the research questions are answered or not. For example, the challenges and difficulties associated with communities and stakeholders in hybrid PPAs are not directly discussed in the section. Maybe the authors should consider revising Section 5 in respect to the formulated questions.

* It is advisable to include figures or tables summarizing the findings in Section 5. This will considerably improve the presentation of the section.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is well-written, however it still contains errors. Therefore, it is strongly recommended proofreading the paper once more. For example:

- In line 32 on page 1, please include the appropriate proposition after "revolution lies".

 

Author Response

Reviewer #2

Overview:

This submission examines the role of community and stakeholder engagement in the hybrid renewable energy power purchase agreements (PPAs). This examination is carried out using a systematic literature review analysis.

In my opinion, the paper’s topic is interesting. Since the scope and aims of the paper are aligned with the ones of Sustainability, I encourage the authors to improve the quality of the paper according to the comments below. Comments:

R2.1.: The paper is well-written; however, it still contains errors. Therefore, it is strongly recommended proofreading the paper once more. For example: In line 32 on page 1, please include the appropriate proposition after "revolution lies".

Our response: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the suggestion. We have now redrafted the sentence to be clearer to the reader. We acknowledge the importance of ensuring error-free content and another thorough proofreading of the manuscript to address any remaining errors has now been conducted.

R2.2.: It is advisable to include "and" between author names prior to their respective reference number. For example: On page 4, please replace "Stanitsas, Kirytopoulos [22]" with "Stanitsas and Kirytopoulos". On page 23, please replace "Aladpoosh, Shaharoun [23]" with "Aladpoosh and Shaharoun [23]"

Our response: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the suggestion. We have now changed the citations where needed.

R2.3.: In keywords, the authors included terms, e.g., PPAs, which are already provided in Title and Abstract. It is advisable to include different keywords to improve paper indexing in databases, such as Scholar and Scopus.

Our response: We recognize the importance of the Reviewer’s observation and we have therefore revised the keywords to include additional terms that enhance the paper's indexing in databases.

R2.4.: In Section 2, the authors provided a literature review on the topic discussed. It is not clear whether the cited papers are related works or selected through the systematic literature review (SLR) approach. In the case of the latter, the authors should consider moving Section 2 below Section 3.

Our response: We appreciate the Reviewer's feedback regarding the structure of Section 2. The cited papers in Section 2 were selected as related works to provide a comprehensive background on the topic. Moving Section 2 below Section 3 may disrupt the logical flow of the paper, as it sets the foundation for the subsequent analysis and findings. To better address the comment, we have now clarified in the manuscript that the papers cited were chosen based on their relevance to the topic rather than through a systematic literature review (SLR) approach:

“This Section provides a comprehensive review of existing literature pertinent to stakeholder and community engagement in hybrid PPAs, highlighting key insights and findings from prior research. The literature cited in this Section was selected to provide a comprehensive background on the topic as related works.”

R2.5.: In Section 3, the authors described the used SLR process. However, several details are omitted, including the logical operators between the keywords and paper inclusion/exclusion criteria. The authors should provide such details. Furthermore, it is advisable to briefly describe for readers the research design steps depicted in Figure 2.

Our response: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the insightful comments on Section 3. We acknowledge the omission of certain details and have revised the section to include the following information:

• The description that outlines the systematic approach taken in conducting the SLR, which highlights the methodological funnelling process used to narrow down the study selection.
• The combination of logical operators to refine the search strategy.
• The criteria used to include or exclude papers in our review.
• The brief description of the steps depicted in Figure 2.

R2.6.: In the same section, the research questions are defined for this review paper. It is advisable to include these questions in Introduction since they define the aim and scope of the paper.

Our response: We thank the Reviewer for the valuable feedback and for suggesting the inclusion of the research questions in the Introduction section. We appreciate the intent behind this recommendation. After careful deliberation, we have decided to retain the research questions in Section 3 for the following reasons:

• Contextual placement: Placing the research questions in Section 3 allows us to present them in the context of the SLR methodology. This contextual placement helps to clearly connect the research questions with the detailed explanation of our review process, ensuring that readers understand how these questions guide our systematic approach.
• Flow of information: The current structure maintains a logical flow of information, leading readers from a general introduction to the specific details of our methodology. This helps to gradually build up the background, allowing readers to fully grasp the rationale behind the research questions when they encounter them.
• Clarity and focus: By introducing the research questions within the Materials and Methods section, we aim to keep the Introduction concise and focused on providing a broad overview of the research topic, its significance, and the objectives of the paper. This approach avoids overloading the Introduction with details that are more pertinent to the methodological framework.

We do hope that the Reviewer agrees with our rationale and finds the explanation satisfactory.

R2.7.: On page 4, it is stated that one of the aims of the SLR is to provide insights on themes found in the relevant literature. Such insights, however, are not provided throughout the paper. Thus, it is advisable to present the themes of reviewed literature in Section 5. Moreover, the authors should consider categorizing the reviewed publications according to the identified themes.

Our response: We acknowledge the Reviewer’s observation regarding the lack of explicit insights on themes identified in the relevant literature. To address this, we have revised Section 5 to include a detailed presentation of the themes found in the reviewed literature. This addition will provide a comprehensive overview of the key insights and patterns that emerged from the SLR.

R2.8.: In Section 5, it is not clear whether the research questions are answered or not. For example, the challenges and difficulties associated with communities and stakeholders in hybrid PPAs are not directly discussed in the section. Maybe the authors should consider revising Section 5 in respect to the formulated questions.

Our response: We thank the Reviewer for the valuable feedback. We have revisited Section 5 to ensure that it directly addresses the research questions. Here are the answers to more clearly and comprehensively reflect each question, also included in the manuscript:

• What are the primary benefits of community and stakeholder participation in hybrid PPAs?

“Community and stakeholder participation in hybrid PPAs leads to increased local support, improved project acceptance, and enhanced social license to operate. It also fosters a sense of ownership and ensures that projects are tailored to meet local needs.”

• How does community and stakeholder engagement influence the success of such PPAs?

“Engagement of communities and stakeholders positively influences the success of hybrid PPAs by facilitating smoother project implementation, reducing conflicts, and ensuring long-term sustainability through active local involvement and collaboration.”

• What challenges and difficulties are associated with involving communities and stakeholders in such projects?

“Challenges include managing diverse interests and expectations, ensuring effective communication, and addressing potential conflicts. Additionally, there may be logistical and financial constraints in organizing meaningful engagement and participation activities.”

R2.9.: It is advisable to include figures or tables summarizing the findings in Section 5. This will considerably improve the presentation of the section.

Our response: We appreciate the suggestion made by the Reviewer and to comply with the comment we have added a comprehensive Τable titled "Key themes in community and stakeholder engagement for Hybrid PPAs," which encapsulates the main insights and categories derived from the SLR. Additionally, there are two existing figures within the paper that further summarize and illustrate the key findings. We believe these visual aids enhance the clarity and presentation of our research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      No quantitative data is provided on the failure of sustainable technology projects because of this—community and stakeholder disengagement.

2.      Community empowerment involves a high risk of dependency on Political community interests that should go beyond the technical scope of a sustainability study.

3.      Although the paper is based on an extensive literature review, it is not well chronologically organized in explaining how each paper reviewed contributes to a solid conclusion.

4.      It seems that the importance of stakeholder and community engagement highlighted at the beginning of the review was finally the paper's conclusion. In this way, the paper does not point out any merit.

5.      I recommend the authors redo the paper with a new strategy that does not continuously repeat the same arguments.

 

It is important to point out that because of the environmental deterioration experienced, technological transformative changes, that prove economically feasible will be needed. As a result, community engagement will emerge to provide support. Not all the way around.

Author Response

Reviewer #3

The following comments could help improve the paper:

R3.8.: No quantitative data is provided on the failure of sustainable technology projects because of this—community and stakeholder disengagement.

Our response: We do see the point of the Reviewer regarding the lack of quantitative data on the failure of sustainable technology projects due to community and stakeholder disengagement. We acknowledge the importance of including quantitative data to substantiate our claims about the critical role of community and stakeholder engagement in the success of renewable energy projects. However, our current study primarily focused on a SLR to synthesize existing knowledge and highlight key themes and findings within this domain. To address this gap, we propose including a dedicated reference in our conclusion that acknowledges the need for quantitative data and suggests avenues for future research. Specifically, we have amended the Conclusion section as follows:

“To further address the lack of quantitative data regarding the failure of renewable energy projects due to community and stakeholder disengagement, future research should focus on conducting empirical studies that gather quantitative data on project failures and successes, explicitly linking these outcomes to levels of community and stakeholder engagement. Utilizing case studies and large-scale surveys to statistically analyse the impact of engagement on project performance and sustainability outcomes will provide more concrete evidence. Additionally, collaborating with industry partners and policymakers to access data on past and ongoing projects can facilitate a comprehensive quantitative analysis, helping to substantiate the critical role of engagement in the success of sustainable technology initiatives.”

R3.9.: Community empowerment involves a high risk of dependency on Political community interests that should go beyond the technical scope of a sustainability study.

Our response: We do acknowledge the Reviewer’s observation that community empowerment can indeed intersect with political interests, which may extend beyond the technical scope of a sustainability study. However, our research highlights the importance of recognizing and managing these intersections to ensure the successful implementation of hybrid PPAs. By acknowledging the referred risks and proposing strategies to address them, we aim to provide a comprehensive context that incorporates community empowerment while minimizing potential political dependencies. This is also the reason that we refer to the TBL of sustainability as complex economic, social/political, and environmental structure.

R3.10.: Although the paper is based on an extensive literature review, it is not well chronologically organized in explaining how each paper reviewed contributes to a solid conclusion.

Our response: We totally understand that a chronological presentation can be effective, but we chose to organize the reviewed articles into meaningful sections based on thematic relevance. This approach provides clearer focus, allows comprehensive synthesis of related studies, and enhances overall readability.

R3.11.: It seems that the importance of stakeholder and community engagement highlighted at the beginning of the review was finally the paper's conclusion. In this way, the paper does not point out any merit. I recommend the authors redo the paper with a new strategy that does not continuously repeat the same arguments.

Our response: We apologize if the positioning of the paper was such, that led to this conclusion. Taking this comment on board we understood that we were not successful in raising the main conclusions of the paper properly. To address this, we made the following revisions:

• Novel contributions: Conclusion: "This study contributes novel insights by identifying effective engagement strategies such as community workshops and digital platforms. The authors also highlight the transformative role of technology in enhancing stakeholder participation and project outcomes."
• Differentiating initial premises from conclusions: Discussion: "While affirming the critical role of stakeholder engagement, this study advances the field by uncovering nuanced insights into implementation strategies and their impact on project success and community relations."
• Actionable recommendations: Results: "Practitioners and policymakers can enhance engagement by adopting diverse strategies, leveraging technology, and ensuring transparency. Customizing approaches to local contexts is crucial for fostering community support and project sustainability."
• Future research directions: Conclusion: Alignment with previous comment R3.6.

Moreover, based collectively on all Reviewers’ comments, we would like to highlight that we have undertaken major amendments to the whole paper that resulted in raising the overall quality of the research and also aligning with the current proposition. In our revised manuscript, we have:

• Streamlined the arguments to avoid redundancy and ensure clarity.
• Introduced new evidence and perspectives to support our findings.
• Enhanced the structure and coherence of the paper by enriching sections with additional text and refining our discussion.

These substantial revisions were made to address the Reviewers’ feedback comprehensively, and we believe that the current version of the manuscript presents our findings in a more concise and effective manner. We hope that the Reviewer finds that the changes satisfactorily address all the concerns and that the revised manuscript meets the standards for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The following comments could help improve the paper:

1.     Avoid using acronyms in keywords, especially those that are not widely known or popular.

2.     To enhance the formality of the abstract, it would be beneficial to adjust the tone to better align with the scientific nature of the paper.

3.     In the introduction, Explicitly state the research gap this study aims to address, particularly regarding community engagement and stakeholder involvement in hybrid PPA projects.

4.     The structure of the paper is not presented in the introduction.

5.     The theoretical contribution may be improved.

6.     In the conclusion, to maintain reader engagement, utilize concise and impactful language in the conclusion section, while ensuring smooth transitions between its different parts. Also, provide more specific recommendations for future research.  

7.     Based on the iThenticate report, there is a significant overlap in the paper (29%). Please address this issue.

Author Response

Reviewer #3

The following comments could help improve the paper:

R3.1.: Avoid using acronyms in keywords, especially those that are not widely known or popular.

Our response: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the suggestion. In the new version of the paper, we have revised the keywords to eliminate less common acronyms, ensuring improved clarity and accessibility.

R3.2.: To enhance the formality of the abstract, it would be beneficial to adjust the tone to better align with the scientific nature of the paper.

Our response: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the suggestion. We have now enriched the abstract in a way to adopt a more formal tone.

R3.3.: In the introduction, explicitly state the research gap this study aims to address, particularly regarding community engagement and stakeholder involvement in hybrid PPA projects.

Our response: We totally agree with the Reviewer’s observation. The following statement has been added to the introduction section:

 “This study aims to address the research gap concerning the nuanced role of community engagement and stakeholder involvement in hybrid PPAs within the renewable energy sector.”

R3.4.: The structure of the paper is not presented in the introduction.

Our response: We do see the point of the Reviewer regarding the structure of the paper, and to furtherly address the suggestion we have added the following text:

“The paper begins with an introduction section that explores the aim, the objectives, and the research gap in relation to the significance of community engagement and stakeholder involvement in hybrid PPAs, followed by a rigorous systematic literature review. Section 3 outlines the research materials and methods followed by a comprehensive review of the engagement framework and the research approach. The results of the analysis are presented in Section 5, followed by discussion of the findings, and concluding remarks on implications for future research and practice.”

R3.5.: The theoretical contribution may be improved.

Our response: We thank the Reviewer for the valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the suggestion to enhance the theoretical contribution of our study. In response, we have undertaken the following steps to address this aspect:

• Clarification of theoretical frameworks: We have explicitly identified and elaborated on the theoretical frameworks that underpin our research, including community engagement, stakeholder theory, and social acceptance of renewable energy. This has been integrated into the revised literature review section:

“Community engagement involves actively involving communities in decision-making processes, fostering trust, and promoting collaboration. It is crucial for the success and sustainability of renewable energy projects, as it ensures local interests and concerns are addressed. Effective community engagement leads to higher public support and empowerment. Stakeholder theory posits that organizations should consider the interests of all affected parties, not just shareholders. In renewable energy projects, this includes local communities, government agencies, environmental groups, and investors. Balancing these interests helps identify potential conflicts and develop inclusive strategies. Social acceptance encompasses community, market, and socio-political acceptance. It refers to the approval of renewable energy projects by local communities, consumers, and political entities, which is essential for their successful implementation.”

• Integration of existing literature: We conducted an extensive review of the current literature to better align our study with existing concepts. This review has been synthesized to highlight the gaps our research addresses and how it builds upon, challenges, or extends these theoretical frameworks.

“The SLR integrates key findings from recent studies on community engagement and stakeholder involvement in renewable energy projects. By synthesizing this body of work, the authors identify critical concerns and demonstrate how this research extends existing theories, particularly in the context of hybrid PPAs. This synthesis highlights the relevance and this study."

• Positioning our study: We have clearly positioned our research within the context of these theoretical frameworks, discussing the implications of our findings for advancing theoretical understanding in the field. We have highlighted how our study contributes to the body of knowledge on the role of community engagement and stakeholder involvement in hybrid PPAs in the Discussion section:

"This research is positioned within established theoretical frameworks, focusing on the role of community engagement and stakeholder involvement in hybrid PPAs. The findings reveal the tangible benefits of prioritizing community empowerment, such as increased local acceptance and tailored project designs. These insights advance theoretical understanding and provide practical implications for future projects."

• Highlighting practical implications and broader impact: Our findings underscore the critical role of stakeholder engagement in ensuring compliance with regulatory mandates and achieving sustainability outcomes. By prioritizing community empowerment in hybrid PPAs, we demonstrate how projects can secure local acceptance, reduce opposition, and better align with community needs. These insights provide actionable strategies for practitioners and policymakers in the renewable energy sector. The Conclusion section has been enriched towards this logic:

“The research findings underscore the critical role of stakeholder engagement in ensuring compliance with regulatory mandates and achieving sustainability outcomes. By prioritizing community empowerment in hybrid PPAs, projects can secure local acceptance, reduce opposition, and better align with community needs. These insights provide actionable strategies for practitioners and policymakers in the renewable energy sector.”

 R3.6.: In the conclusion, to maintain reader engagement, utilize concise and impactful language in the conclusion section, while ensuring smooth transitions between its different parts. Also, provide more specific recommendations for future research.

Our response: We appreciate the Reviewer’s suggestions regarding the conclusion, particularly the advice to utilize concise and impactful language, ensure smooth transitions, and provide more specific recommendations for future research. We are pleased to inform you that we have implemented minor changes to the conclusion section to address these points. Specifically, we have refined the language to make it more concise and impactful, ensuring seamless transitions between different parts of the conclusion. Additionally, we have added specific recommendations for future research, focusing on the already existing ones:

• Investigating the effectiveness of different engagement strategies: "…., such as community workshops, public consultations, and digital forums, in fostering stakeholder participation and support."
• Examining the role of technology and digital platforms in enhancing stakeholder participation: "…., including social media, virtual reality simulations, and interactive web portals, in enhancing stakeholder participation and engagement."
• Integrating stakeholder engagement into broader sustainability frameworks: "…., focusing on how participatory approaches can align with sustainable development goals and corporate social responsibility initiatives.”
• Fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge sharing to address emerging challenges and opportunities in sustainable energy transitions: "…., such as grid integration and policy adaptation…"

We believe these revisions enhance the clarity and engagement of the conclusion while providing actionable insights for future research.

R3.7.: Based on the iThenticate report, there is a significant overlap in the paper (29%). Please address this issue.

Our response: We would like to thank the Reviewer for bringing the iThenticate report to our attention, something that came to our surprise. We appreciate the diligence in ensuring the originality and integrity of our manuscript. We have meticulously ensured that the content is original and properly cited where necessary. We have run once again the report after revising the manuscript and we get a similarity ratio of 26% (24% when references are excluded).  Please note though that seeing the details of the report one notices that there is no single source with a similarity higher than 2% and there are no specific “identical” lines in the text apart from sporadic similar arrays of words here and there. In view of that we are confident that there is no problem with similarity.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has investigated different social and community parameters affecting power purchase agreements through a systematic literature review, mostly focused on stakeholder engagement and local community acceptance.

The work is novel and interesting, however, there are some recommendations to amend the quality and impact of the work which should be taken into consideration. Those are as follows:

1- Figure 5 should be described better and all of the parameters in it should be explained.  

2- Figure 6, should be described in detail and all its parameters should be expounded on.

3- In Figure 4, it has been indicated that identification is just for stakeholders and strategies, not to mention the importance of identification for the local community. It is easy to recognize the local community, but it might possess some criteria to select a highly cooperative local community. So, Please add this part or justify it. 

4- In the results section, it has been written, " The main concern nowadays when trying to achieve the renewable energy transition comes across the common dilemma of ensuring grid stability amid reliance on intermittent renewable resources like wind and solar."

So, why other approaches like tidal current turbines and point absorbers are not at the center of attention as they are potent to create renewable energy more permissible than wind and solar?

5-In section 5, draw a curve to depict the growth of stakeholders and local community interests or contributions to renewable energy unfolding.

6-In part 5, results, a separate part should be placed to explain the weight and dominancy of different factors such as stakeholders, local communities, innovation, etc. 

7- A cause-and-effect chart should be devised and expound on the efficacy of each parameter on other factors and determine which factor surpasses others respectively. The question regarding that should be added to section 3 of this investigation as question 4.

The paper needs reassessing after providing the revised version by the authors. 

 

Author Response

Reviewer #4

The paper has investigated different social and community parameters affecting power purchase agreements through a systematic literature review, mostly focused on stakeholder engagement and local community acceptance.

The work is novel and interesting, however, there are some recommendations to amend the quality and impact of the work which should be taken into consideration. Those are as follows:

R4.1.: Figure 5 should be described better and all the parameters in it should be explained.

Our response: Following the reviewer’s suggestion we have now thoroughly described Figure 5 and all the parameters in it:

“Stakeholders in this context include corporations, renewable energy developers, investors, policymakers, financial institutions, and technology providers. These stakeholders require collaborative relationships and interactions for project planning, financing, risk management, and innovation, all of which are essential for the successful development and implementation of renewable energy projects. Key processes for stakeholders encompass inclusive development, collaboration, trust-building, and innovation. Inclusive development ensures that all relevant parties are involved in the project from the beginning. Collaboration involves working together to achieve common goals. Trust-building is crucial for developing mutual trust among stakeholders and communities, and innovation encourages new ideas and technologies to improve project outcomes.

Communities, on the other hand, include local residents, community organizations, and local authorities. The community engagement process involves engaging the community through various methods to ensure their involvement and support. This process includes community meetings where community members can learn about the project and voice their opinions, workshops that provide information and gather feedback, surveys to collect data and opinions from a broader segment of the community, and outreach events designed to inform and involve the community.

The culmination of these interactions and processes is the development and success of hybrid PPAs, which rely heavily on the collaboration between stakeholders and communities. The positive impacts resulting from this collaboration include proper project siting, which ensures the selected location is optimal for the project's success, gaining social acceptance, contributing to economic development through job creation and other benefits, and ensuring long-term sustainability by making sure projects are viable and beneficial over time.

This figure underscores the importance of stakeholder and community involvement in the renewable energy sector. By fostering inclusive development, collaboration, trust-building, and innovation, projects can achieve significant positive impacts that contribute to their overall success and sustainability.”

R4.2.: Figure 6, should be described in detail and all its parameters should be expounded on.

Our response: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the suggestion. We have now added additional text for Figure 6, as well:

“At the centre of the Figure are the key findings on stakeholder and community engagement in hybrid PPAs, surrounded by four interconnected aspects.

The first aspect is the main categories of stakeholders, which include various groups that have a dynamic interaction and mutual influence between stakeholders and project outcomes. These stakeholders guide the stakeholder engagement frameworks by emphasizing transparency, inclusivity, and respect for diverse perspectives. The importance of ethical conduct in fostering meaningful dialogue and collaboration is also highlighted in this aspect.

The second aspect focuses on innovative engagement strategies, which are crucial for maximizing social acceptance and community participation in hybrid PPAs. Beneficial strategies include community outreach events, participatory decision-making processes, and capacity-building initiatives. These strategies aim to showcase best practices in stakeholder engagement, ensuring that all voices are heard and considered in the decision-making process.

The third aspect is the integration with research methodology, where stakeholder and community engagement are incorporated into the overall research process. This includes data collection, analysis, and interpretation, emphasizing the iterative nature of stake-holder engagement throughout the research process. This integration is essential for generating contextually relevant and actionable insights, making the research methodology more robust and comprehensive by incorporating stakeholder feedback and participation.

The fourth aspect addresses ethical considerations and principles, which are para-mount in guiding stakeholder engagement frameworks. These considerations include ensuring transparency, inclusivity, and respect for diverse perspectives. Ethical conduct is essential in fostering meaningful dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders, ensuring that the engagement process is fair and respectful.

In summary, the Figure highlights the importance of dynamic interactions and mutual influence between stakeholders and project outcomes. It underscores the need for guiding stakeholder engagement frameworks that emphasize ethical conduct, innovative engagement strategies to maximize community participation, integration of stakeholder engagement with research methodology, and adherence to ethical considerations and principles. These elements collectively contribute to the effective engagement of stake-holders and communities in hybrid PPAs, leading to better project outcomes and in-creased social acceptance.”

R4.3.: In Figure 4, it has been indicated that identification is just for stakeholders and strategies, not to mention the importance of identification for the local community. It is easy to recognize the local community, but it might possess some criteria to select a highly cooperative local community. So, please add this part or justify it.

Our response: We recognize the importance of the Reviewer’s suggestion and we have therefore enhanced Section 4 to comply with the proposal:

“In identifying a highly cooperative local community, criteria such as community engagement history, strong local leadership, social cohesion, and positive attitudes towards renewable energy are essential. These factors ensure effective collaboration and support for the project's success. Including these considerations enhances the overall stakeholder engagement strategy."

R4.4.: In the results section, it has been written, " The main concern nowadays when trying to achieve the renewable energy transition comes across the common dilemma of ensuring grid stability amid reliance on intermittent renewable resources like wind and solar." So, why other approaches like tidal current turbines and point absorbers are not at the centre of attention as they are potent to create renewable energy more permissible than wind and solar?

Our response: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the insightful feedback and for highlighting an important aspect of renewable energy technologies. In the results section, we discussed the common dilemma of ensuring grid stability amid reliance on intermittent renewable resources like wind and solar. This focus was chosen due to the current global trends and the widespread implementation of these technologies. Wind and solar energy have seen significant investment and rapid deployment, making them central to many countries' renewable energy strategies. This has resulted in a substantial body of research and practical experience concerning their integration into the grid, particularly in terms of addressing intermittency and stability issues. However, we acknowledge that other renewable energy technologies, such as tidal current turbines and point absorbers, offer significant potential for stable and predictable energy generation. These technologies harness the consistent and predictable nature of tidal currents and wave energy, which could contribute to a more balanced and reliable renewable energy mix. The reasons why tidal and wave energy technologies are not currently at the centre of attention as much as wind and solar include several factors like technological maturity: infrastructure and investment opportunities and geographical limitations. Thus, we chose to not closely look upon them.

R4.5.: In section 5, draw a curve to depict the growth of stakeholders and local community interests or contributions to renewable energy unfolding.

Our response: Complying with the Reviewer’s suggestion, and based on the literature search we have added the following text in the Results section:

“It is also evident that during the last decade he stakeholders', and the local community's interest/contribution demonstrate an upward trend, with stakeholders' interest slightly higher, reflecting their increasing involvement and investment in renewable energy projects.”

R4.6.: In part 5, results, a separate part should be placed to explain the weight and dominancy of different factors such as stakeholders, local communities, innovation, etc. A cause-and-effect chart should be devised and expound on the efficacy of each parameter on other factors and determine which factor surpasses others respectively. The question regarding that should be added to section 3 of this investigation as question 4. The paper needs reassessing after providing the revised version by the authors.

Our response: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the valuable suggestions regarding the inclusion of an analysis on the weight and dominancy of different factors such as stakeholders, local communities, and innovation in Section 5, as well as the creation of a cause-and-effect chart. We appreciate the input and recognize the importance of such an analysis. However, conducting a detailed quantitative analysis to determine the efficacy and dominance of these parameters would require specific quantitative data collection and statistical methods, which are beyond the scope of this systematic literature review. Our current study is based on a qualitative synthesis of existing literature, which does not provide the necessary data to accurately weigh and compare these factors.

We acknowledge that determining the relative influence of each factor would significantly enhance the understanding of hybrid PPAs. Therefore, we will include this as a direction for future research in the Conclusion section, emphasizing the need for empirical studies that collect and analyse quantitative data to address this gap:

“Another inquiry for future research could entail focus on conducting quantitative analyses to determine the efficacy and dominance of various factors influencing hybrid PPAs. This would involve collecting empirical data through surveys, case studies, and statistical modelling to establish causal relationships and compare the relative impact of stakeholders, local communities, innovation, and other relevant parameters.”

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further comment

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer #4

R4.1.: I have no further comment. Minor editing of English language required.

Our response: Following the Reviewer’s suggestion we have now made the necessary edits to improve the English language in the manuscript.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded and amended all of the recommendations. Therefore, the paper is suitable for publication. 

Author Response

Reviewer #5

R5.1.: The authors have responded and amended all of the recommendations. Therefore, the paper is suitable for publication.

Our response: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the positive feedback and support for the publication of our paper.