Rural Energy Communities as Pillar towards Low Carbon Future in Egypt: Beyond COP27

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

ROWS: 131-133: Discussing some local best practices on different scales (literature review and on site investigation) (Section 3.3.2). Figure 2 summarizes the methodology: Why this approach? Please more clarify.

ROWS:500-502: In these ambitious goals, the economic factor remains a significant barrier due to the 500 high initial cost, especially in the aftermath of floating the value of the Egyptian pound; 501 the value decreased by about 20% in October 2022: it does not indicate the clarify conclusion of the article.

I think the article can be approved with minor revisions. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for your comments and for supporting the manuscript’s improvement. Here is the reply to your valuable comments:

Comment #1. ROWS: 131-133: Discussing some local best practices on different scales (literature review and on-site investigation) (Section 3.3.2). Figure 2 summarizes the methodology: Why this approach? Please more clarify.

Reply #1: (Section 2.1.3) has been re-wrote showing this step’s logic in line with the study. Consequently, (section 3.3.2) has been split into two sections.

Comment #2: ROWS:500-502: In these ambitious goals, the economic factor remains a significant barrier due to the 500 high initial cost, especially in the aftermath of floating the value of the Egyptian pound; 501 the value decreased by about 20% in October 2022: it does not indicate the clarify conclusion of the article.

Reply #2: This part has been eliminated.

Generally, the research design, results, and conclusion have been enhanced and strengthened in order to follow the same coherence of the research methodology (many paragraphs/sentences merged, modified, and rearranged):

• The research design is emphasized in the methodology part; consequently, figure 2 is modified, and section 3.3.2 is divided into two sections (literature review and on-site study);
• The conclusion has been strengthened; specifically, sub-titles were added to answer the two research questions clearly (Sections 4.1 and 4.2);
• New references were added. One updated best-practice has been added under section 3.3.2;

All misspelling has been re-checked.

Reviewer 2 Report

The study aims to restore the function of the rural commons from consumerism to productivity as Energy Basket and create a tendency and momentum toward self-sufficiency dogma by promoting the rural energy community concept from a top-down approach in Egypt. It starts the paper with two research questions that support the analysis well. The research structure and the applied methodologies are clearly presented. It contains both top-down and bottom-up approaches as well. The report can be easily followed, and it is understandable.

However, there are some misspellings. The paper has to be revised. Few more comments:

- The abstract can not contain references. Please, delete it.

- Figure 1: it is too complicated and hard to understand. Please, simplify it.

- Line 178: "Frieden et al. [21]" something is missing here. Please, revise.

- Figure 3. The current title is rather a description than a title. Please, add a short but concise title. However, the grey bubbles (especially in the case of EU Green Deal) may present/list not key phrases but related strategies (e.g. Fit for 55, RepowerEU).

- The figures' titles are not appropriate. Please, change the titles and give shorter and more concise ones.

- Line 217-218: misspelling, please revise it ("good life for its residents, which is In line)

- Line 243: )iii- misspelling

- Line 258: CC impacts, As- misspelling

I recommend the paper for publication after a minor revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,  

Thank you very much for your comments and for supporting the manuscript’s improvement. Here is the reply to your valuable comments:

 Comment #1:  The abstract can not contain references. Please, delete it.

Reply #1: The reference has been eliminated.

Comment #2:  Figure 1: it is too complicated and hard to understand. Please, simplify it.

Reply #2: The figure has been reproduced and simplified.

Comment #3:   Line 178: “Frieden et al. [21]” something is missing here. Please, revise.

Reply #3: “stated that” has been added.

Comment #4:   Figure 3. The current title is rather a description than a title. Please, add a short but concise title. However, the grey bubbles (especially in the case of EU Green Deal) may present/list not key phrases but related strategies (e.g. Fit for 55, RepowerEU).

Reply #4:

1. The title has been shortened. A short description (paragraph) has been added before/after the figure.
2. The figure has been developed, including the recommendations.

Comment #5:   The figures’ titles are not appropriate. Please, change the titles and give shorter and more concise ones.

Reply #5: The figures’ titles have been shortened, and any necessary description has been merged in-text instead of the figures' captions.

Comments #6,7, and 8 Related Misspelling.

Reply #6,7, and 8. All the misspellings have been revised.

Generally, the research design, results, and conclusion have been enhanced and strengthened in order to follow the same coherence of the research methodology (many paragraphs/sentences merged, modified, and rearranged):

• The research design is emphasized in the methodology part; consequently, figure 2 is modified, and section 3.3.2 is divided into two sections (literature review and on-site study);
• The conclusion has been strengthened; specifically, sub-titles were added to answer the two research questions clearly (Sections 4.1 and 4.2);
• New references were added. One updated best practice has been added under section 3.3.2;

Reviewer 3 Report

The article discusses the problem of rural energy communities as pillar towards low carbon future in Egypt. It is a current and important topic. However, the manuscript in its current form is suitable as a review paper, not a research one. I suggest changing it to a review paper. If not, the manuscript needs a major revision. Especially: 

- expand the introduction and refer to the world's energy communities;

- better describe and apply field research;

- expand the discussion of the results and refer to the international literature;

- extract the "Conclusions" section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,  

Thank you very much for your comments and for supporting the manuscript’s improvement. Here is the reply to your valuable comments:

Comment #1. The article discusses the problem of rural energy communities as pillar towards low carbon future in Egypt. It is a current and important topic. However, the manuscript in its current form is suitable as a review paper, not a research one. I suggest changing it to a review paper. If not, the manuscript needs a major revision. 

Reply #1. I do agree that the Review article will better convey the purpose of the study. The type has been changed. Meanwhile, the entire manuscript has been developed, and a lot of sentences have been merged, modified, and rearranged. In order to support the same coherence of the methodology and the research design.

Comment #2. - expand the introduction and refer to the world's energy communities;

Reply#2. The introduction has been strengthened, and a clear reference to (section 2.2) was added. In Section 2.2. More elaboration about the legal frameworks and a few European examples were presented. Consequently, insights from this section -clearly- supported the discussion of results and conclusion.

Comment #3 better describe and apply field research

Reply #3. The entire section has been developed. Section 3.3.2 is divided into two sections (literature review and on-site study). Few unnecessary numerical numbers were decreased.

Comment #4. - expand the discussion of the results and refer to the international literature.

Reply#4. The conclusion has been expanded and strengthened. Specifically, sub-titles were added to answer the two research questions clearly (Sections 4.1 and 4.2). The same coherence of the research methodology was emphasized, and new literature studies were added to support and synthesize the results.

Comment#5 extract the "Conclusions" section

Reply#5. The conclusion has been extracted. The limitations and future work have been emphasized.

Finally, the cited references have been strengthened.  The method and research design have been enhanced. The results and conclusion have been totally developed. All misspelling has been re-checked.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Article type changed to review. Individual sections have been supplemented.