Optimal Location of Solar Photovoltaic Plants Using Geographic Information Systems and Multi-Criteria Analysis
, Javier Sedano-Cibrián * and Carolina Ruiz-Fernández
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMs No: Sustainability – 2867771
Title: Optimal Location of Solar Photovoltaic Plants Using Geographic Information Systems and Multi-Criteria Analysis
Authors: Julio Manuel de Luis-Ruiz, Benito Ramiro Salas-Menocal, Raúl Pereda-García, Rubén Pérez-Álvarez, Javier Sedano-Cibrián, Carolina Ruiz-Fernández
Evaluation
The present paper deals with the determination of the optimal location of photovoltaic plants using significant information obtained from the geographic position employing a mutli-criteria analysis. It is a very detailed and well written paper with numerous information concerning the analysis of the criteria as well as the implementation of the geographic information towards the determination of the optimal location of photovoltaic plants. Considering the above the present work is suitable for publication in Sustainability Journal after minor revisions based on the comments listed below.
Comments
1. In the Introduction section is there any specific reason for using "..." for Solar Energy? If not please remove them.
2. In the 4.1 Introduction section, Authors mention the reasons choosing Cantabria for their analysis. However, I believe it would be intriguing to also mention other potential region that may combine all the advantages provided by the former in order to strengthen their opinion. A small comparison before the analysis of the results would be very informative and would facilitate the potential reader to comprehend the significance of the present work. For instance, they could refer to potential regions in Africa (I would guess in the southern hemisphere), in Asia, in North and South America or even a state in Australia or New Zealand. Finding and mentioning those places would increase the research interest and potential researchers would use the applied model to find optimal location in their area thus increasing the impact of the paper.
3. According to authors’ opinion the multi-criteria analysis after being transformed could be applied for the determination of the optimum location for a wind-park for power production?
4. During their research did the authors use any other criteria that are not mentioned in the text? If this is the case what forced them to exclude them from the criteria analysis? Why they were not considered so important?
5. According to authors’ opinion since some of the applied criteria could be included to a potential life cycle analysis (LCA), do they believe that the results of a potential LCA would fit to the multi-criteria analysis? For instance, the social impact of a construction of a photovoltaic plant in Africa would arise many issues. Please comment on this. A small text could be added in the discussion section which should be enriched a little bit more.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, we would like thank your assessment and comments, which have been helpful to improve the quality of our work. In the following lines we will address your comments and suggestions.
“The present paper deals with the determination of the optimal location of photovoltaic plants using significant information obtained from the geographic position employing a mutli-criteria analysis. It is a very detailed and well written paper with numerous information concerning the analysis of the criteria as well as the implementation of the geographic information towards the determination of the optimal location of photovoltaic plants. Considering the above the present work is suitable for publication in Sustainability Journal after minor revisions based on the comments listed below.
Comments
- In the Introduction section is there any specific reason for using "..." for Solar Energy? If not please remove them.”
The use of “…” has been removed. [Line 39]
“ 2. In the 4.1 Introduction section, Authors mention the reasons choosing Cantabria for their analysis. However, I believe it would be intriguing to also mention other potential region that may combine all the advantages provided by the former in order to strengthen their opinion. A small comparison before the analysis of the results would be very informative and would facilitate the potential reader to comprehend the significance of the present work. For instance, they could refer to potential regions in Africa (I would guess in the southern hemisphere), in Asia, in North and South America or even a state in Australia or New Zealand. Finding and mentioning those places would increase the research interest and potential researchers would use the applied model to find optimal location in their area thus increasing the impact of the paper.”
The methodology proposed in this research is of a general nature, therefore it is extrapolable and can be applied to the rest of the world. In the specific case of the research, it is applied in Cantabria through a particular case study in order to validate the methodology. This extension of the territory was chosen due to the ease of obtaining the necessary information for the researchers and because it is a single administrative unit, which also makes it easier to obtain the information, which is limited to the study area, as explained in the following lines 414-416.
In order to highlight that this methodology could applicable to any other case, it has been mentioned in lines 408-411.
“3. According to authors’ opinion the multi-criteria analysis after being transformed could be applied for the determination of the optimum location for a wind-park for power production?”
The proposed methodology itself can be applied to the study of the optimal location of a wind farm in a similar way to that described for photovoltaic farms, but a selection of criteria would have to be made and their weighting established according to the characteristics of wind energy. For those qualitative criteria that can be quantified and for those with a time variable such as wind speed, it is possible to apply the same quantification and typification proposed, as this is one of the main contributions of the research.
“4. During their research did the authors use any other criteria that are not mentioned in the text? If this is the case what forced them to exclude them from the criteria analysis? Why they were not considered so important?”
No, there were not. Only the criteria described in the research were assessed. These criteria have emerged as a result of the literature review of other articles related to PV plant siting and the Group's own research.
“5. According to authors’ opinion since some of the applied criteria could be included to a potential life cycle analysis (LCA), do they believe that the results of a potential LCA would fit to the multi-criteria analysis? For instance, the social impact of a construction of a photovoltaic plant in Africa would arise many issues. Please comment on this. A small text could be added in the discussion section which should be enriched a little bit more.”
The criteria applied can be included in a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), in the same way that new criteria referring to LCA could be added, such as social impact of construction, pollution, decommissioning, but are outside the scope of the research.
This aspect has been added to the discussion for a better understanding of the research approach and results. [Lines 617-626]
Once again, we would like to thank your time and assessment. We hope that these changes meet your criteria.
Kind regards,
The Corresponding Author.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComment on Manuscript ID: sustainability-2867771
Some similar works published in the literature should be discussed in the introduction, and the findings should be compared, such as:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2023.111807
https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2023.2167999
The introduction should be updated.
There is no explanation, comparison, or clear discussion of the findings.
The table caption should provide a detailed description of the parameters contained within these tables.
The conclusion has to be enhanced.
No references from 2023 are included.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, we would like thank your assessment and comments, which have been helpful to improve the quality of our work. In the following lines we will address your comments and suggestions.
“Some similar works published in the literature should be discussed in the introduction, and the findings should be compared, such as:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2023.111807
https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2023.2167999
The introduction should be updated.”
A paragraph has been introduced to contextualise the work. The text provides background on the methodology for MCDA and GIS analysis and how it is generally used by other authors for site selection studies of photovoltaic plants. It identifies the main weaknesses of the previous proposals, which the present research aims to address. [Lines 54-91]
“There is no explanation, comparison, or clear discussion of the findings.”
The discussion has been extended to include new points to discuss, to compare the results obtained and to assess the possible advantages and disadvantages of the proposed methodology. [Lines 593-626]
“The table caption should provide a detailed description of the parameters contained within these tables.”
The description of the tables has been enlarged to improve their comprehensibility.
“The conclusion has to be enhanced.”
The conclusions have been modified by expanding and highlighting the main contributions of the research on GIS and MCDA methodologies for site selection studies of photovoltaic plants.
“No references from 2023 are included.”
References have been updated to include several citations from 2023.
Once again, we would like to thank your time and assessment. We hope that these changes meet your criteria.
Kind regards,
The Corresponding Author.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript outlines a research study aimed at identifying optimal locations for solar photovoltaic plants using Geographic Information System (GIS) tools. The methodology involves a multi-criteria analysis, considering ten different criteria covering both energy and territorial requirements. Each site is assigned a location coefficient based on the weighted criteria, allowing for ranking from best to worst locations. The proposed method is described as more consistent and statistically sound compared to traditional approaches, as it employs objective and logical criteria for weighting. The study applies this methodology to Cantabria, Spain, but suggests its potential applicability to other contexts as well.
I have the following basic questions that authors should implement in their revision:
Certainly, here are a few questions pertaining to the originality of the work and its relation to existing literature:
1. How does this research contribute to the existing body of literature on optimal site selection for solar photovoltaic plants?
2. What distinguishes this study from previous research efforts with similar objectives?
3. Has the research identified any gaps or limitations in prior literature regarding the quantitative treatment and weighting of criteria for site selection?
4. Can you elaborate on the novelty of the methodology proposed in this research compared to traditional approaches found in the literature?
5. How does the research address any discrepancies or inconsistencies observed in methodologies employed by previous studies?
6. Were there any unexpected findings or divergences between the proposed methodology and existing literature in terms of criteria selection and weighting?
7. To what extent does the research build upon or challenge existing theoretical frameworks in the field of renewable energy site selection?
8. Has the study identified any emerging trends or innovations in site selection methodologies that have not been thoroughly explored in prior literature?
9. How does the research contextualize its findings within the broader landscape of renewable energy research and sustainable development initiatives?
10. Can you discuss any notable debates or controversies within the literature that the research addresses or contributes to in terms of site selection methodologies for solar photovoltaic plants?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNone
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, we would like thank your assessment and comments, which have been helpful to improve the quality of our work. In the following lines we will address your comments and suggestions.
“The manuscript outlines a research study aimed at identifying optimal locations for solar photovoltaic plants using Geographic Information System (GIS) tools. The methodology involves a multi-criteria analysis, considering ten different criteria covering both energy and territorial requirements. Each site is assigned a location coefficient based on the weighted criteria, allowing for ranking from best to worst locations. The proposed method is described as more consistent and statistically sound compared to traditional approaches, as it employs objective and logical criteria for weighting. The study applies this methodology to Cantabria, Spain, but suggests its potential applicability to other contexts as well.
I have the following basic questions that authors should implement in their revision:
Certainly, here are a few questions pertaining to the originality of the work and its relation to existing literature:
- How does this research contribute to the existing body of literature on optimal site selection for solar photovoltaic plants?
- What distinguishes this study from previous research efforts with similar objectives?”
There are currently some publications focusing on the study of the optimal location of such plants based on GIS (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods in which similar criteria are used. However, there are discrepancies in the number of criteria, the selection or their weighting. The present research provides a proposal based on a particular set of criteria, in which qualitative criteria can be analysed by means of a proposal for their quantification. In the same way, the research provides a new way of typifying the criteria with temporal variables such as humidity, temperature or cloudiness, which has never been considered before.
“3. Has the research identified any gaps or limitations in prior literature regarding the quantitative treatment and weighting of criteria for site selection?”
Fundamentally, there were not any gaps that could be identified in the previous literature rather than the fact that the existing proposals had not considered the analysis of qualitative criteria through their quantification, as well as the weighting and classification of time-dependent criteria, as the methodology of this research proposes.
“4. Can you elaborate on the novelty of the methodology proposed in this research compared to traditional approaches found in the literature?”
The main contributions of the research with respect to the rest of the existing published research lie in the classification of the criteria based on measurements taken at three representative times of the day instead of the assessment of the annual average, which improves the similarity with reality in daytime hours. On the other hand, the weighting and evaluation of qualitative criteria in a quantitative way in this research should be highlighted, as well as an appropriate selection of criteria for the location of the installation in order to increase its performance. Last but not least, the application of the Saaty method for the evaluation of the criteria shoud be mentioned.
“5. How does the research address any discrepancies or inconsistencies observed in methodologies employed by previous studies?”
Rather than discrepancies in the methodologies used, the lack of criteria with sufficient relevance when it comes to determining the optimal location was detected. The research proposes a methodology that allows certain criteria to be considered in a new and different way to those proposed in previous studies.
“6. Were there any unexpected findings or divergences between the proposed methodology and existing literature in terms of criteria selection and weighting?”
There are no major methodological divergences, but by incorporating new criteria according to the proposal put forward, the results of the site selection analysis may show significant variations. The weighting methodology used is the AHP, which is one of the most commonly used methodologies; however, there are other alternatives mentioned in the document that can lead to variations in the results.
“7. To what extent does the research build upon or challenge existing theoretical frameworks in the field of renewable energy site selection?”
The theoretical framework of the proposed methodology is based on the combination of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for the optimal siting of photovoltaic plants. This is a methodology that is widely used in many areas and has been applied in the field of optimal site assessment of energy projects. In the case of photovoltaic installations, it is possible to find examples in the literature that are based on this combination of methods. However, each of them differs in the selection of criteria, quantification, typification, weighting and assignment of weights.
“8. Has the study identified any emerging trends or innovations in site selection methodologies that have not been thoroughly explored in prior literature?”
In this research, a tendency has been identified which is to use all the criteria that can influence the optimal location, given the calculation power of current hardware and software systems, going from using 3-4 criteria to using up to 10 or more criteria in this case. In general, the more criteria the better. However, it is necessary to evaluate how many criteria should be taken into account depending on whether they have little weight or a minimal impact. In some cases, qualitative criteria are raised, which need to be treated to allow their quantification in order to be part of MCDA. Similarly, another innovation of this research lies in the typification of time-varying criteria.
“9. How does the research contextualize its findings within the broader landscape of renewable energy research and sustainable development initiatives?”
The result of this research is a methodological proposal for the optimal location of photovoltaic installations that obviously goes in the direction of optimizing the installation and therefore making it much more sustainable. Not in vain, and in a first approximation, this research comes to promote the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) #7 - Affordable and Clean Energy, #12 - Responsible Consumption and Production, and #13 - Climate Action, in a direct way.
“ 10. Can you discuss any notable debates or controversies within the literature that the research addresses or contributes to in terms of site selection methodologies for solar photovoltaic plants?”
No relevant controversies have been detected beyond the difference in the criteria selected for the analysis, although the importance or weight that each of the criteria may have and how to weight them is still being investigated.
Once again, we would like to thank your time and assessment. We hope that these changes meet your criteria.
Kind regards,
The Corresponding Author.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have improved the quality of the manuscript. The present revision is recommended for acceptance.
