Assessment of Suitable Areas for Smart Grid of Power Generated from Renewable Energy Resources in Western Uganda
, Adul Bennui 3, Mohammad Shakeri 4, Kuaanan Techato 5 and Shahid Ali 6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I stand by my original opinion that the author has addressed all my concerns
Author Response
The authors thank so much for your consideration and stand by on your original opinion.
Reviewer 2 Report
Include a few lines to highlight how this study can benefit larger global scientific community as this study is done for a selected region.
If not already done, please let a native speaker read the entire manuscript to check grammatical errors and proper flow of information.
Author Response
1. Include a few lines to highlight how this study can benefit larger global scientific community as this study is done for a selected region.
- This study is done for a selected region. However, the authors believe that results from this study will be useful and example for applying in other countries, especially the developing countries which have low electricity access and high potential of renewable energy resources. This detail is added in the section of conclusion, please see lines 481-484.
2. If not already done, please let a native speaker read the entire manuscript to check grammatical errors and proper flow of information.
- The manuscript has been checked by the native speaker.
Reviewer 3 Report
The research is of great interest to the reader. However, the figures require further explanation. For example, explain what is the goal of generating the maps presented in this manuscript.
Line 437: Please correct - Table 2 by Table 5
Explain what are the advantages of using this methodology?
Author Response
1. The research is of great interest to the reader. However, the figures require further explanation. For example, explain what is the goal of generating the maps presented in this manuscript.
- This study assesses the suitable areas for smart grid of power generated from renewable energy resources in Western Uganda. Thus, presentation of maps generated from GIS helps to display geospatial reference data and geospatial results, which support the readers to understand and image in term of physical meaning.
2. Line 437: Please correct - Table 2 by Table 5
- The authors are sorry for this mistake. It has been corrected, please see line 392.
3. Explain what are the advantages of using this methodology?
- The advantage of the methodology applied for this study has been highlighted, please see lines 107-121.
Reviewer 4 Report
The article presents a contextualization of the problem situation, and an argumentative structure, in which the concern with the development of energy generation by power plants is evidenced since the introduction. There is a good structure of the state of the art, especially when describing studies with the same objective, but with different methodologies that enhance the identification of the gap explored in the study.
In general, some topics came up when reading the file:
1. Assessment of suitable areas for smart grid of power generated 2
from renewable energy resources in Western Uganda by using 3
GIS-based fuzzy AHP multi-criteria decisions. It is not necessary to write the methods used in the title.
1. Rewrite these items in a condensed way: 2.1. Study region, 2.2. Power Generation in Uganda and 2.4. National Environment Management Authority of Uganda. The definition of the study area must be objective but with content of interest for the reader to situate themselves.
2. The section 3.1. Data Sources is simple and irrelevant. The definition needs to be more scientific.
3. How were the factors and parameters in the section 3.2 selected? Was there a systematic review of the literature? What is the guarantee that these indicators fully represent the factors to be analyzed? For example, why is the ambient temperature of the location not a considerable factor? Analyze the possibility of inserting an indicator search protocol.
The results are adequately described. Furthermore, the use of graphs and tables facilitate the dissemination of results. However, there is no scientific contribution of the study, there is a lot of research with this objective. Nonetheless, I understand that for the region it is very interesting.
Author Response
1. Assessment of suitable areas for smart grid of power generated from renewable energy resources in Western Uganda by using GIS-based fuzzy AHP multi-criteria decisions. It is not necessary to write the methods used in the title.
- The comment has been considered and the “by using GIS-based fuzzy AHP multi-criteria decisions” has been removed from the tittle.
2. Rewrite these items in a condensed way: 2.1. Study region, 2.2. Power Generation in Uganda and 2.4. National Environment Management Authority of Uganda. The definition of the study area must be objective but with content of interest for the reader to situate themselves.
- The sections have been condensed to one and all redundant information have been removed (lines 136-162).
3. The section 3.1. Data Sources is simple and irrelevant. The definition needs to be more scientific.
- The actual details are included in the Appendix Table as referred. The purpose of the section 3.1 is to inform the readers and clarify the method of data collection. Thus, the reviewer please let the authors to keep this detail in the manuscript.
4. How were the factors and parameters in the section 3.2 selected? Was there a systematic review of the literature? What is the guarantee that these indicators fully represent the factors to be analyzed? For example, why is the ambient temperature of the location not a considerable factor? Analyze the possibility of inserting an indicator search protocol.
- The authors have selected the factors and parameters in the section 3.2 based on a review of previous studies (as highlighted at lines 183-187) combined with the discussion among the authors. It is important to mention that the co-authors in this study have the experience for similar studies in the past. Therefore, this helps to reduce the chance of using irrelevant indicators, or missing the significant ones.
5. The results are adequately described. Furthermore, the use of graphs and tables facilitate the dissemination of results. However, there is no scientific contribution of the study, there is a lot of research with this objective. Nonetheless, I understand that for the region it is very interesting.
- Thank you for your comment. This comment will help the authors to improve the study with more scientific contribution in next work.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please standardize the expression of terms, such as "by using both analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy AHP" in the abstract can be replaced by "by using the fuzzy AHP"? Because the fuzzy AHP has already integrated the AHP and the Fuzzy set theory.
The review of MCDM method still needs to be strengthened. The author should explain why fuzzy AHP is used instead of other MCDM methods, such as the TOPISIS, VIKOR, etc.
Please explain the logical structure of the paper in the Introduction, which is more conducive to readers' reading.
Please clarify the motivation and contribution to the study
Please indicate the specific meaning when the unit name or special symbol appears in the paper for the first time. For example, what are TJ and BTU?
Section 2 is too long. It should be divided into 2 or 3 sections.
Please further enrich the discussion of the results, especially how to reflect the advantages of the method in this paper, for which comparative analysis needs to be added.
Author Response
Response the comments of reviewer1 is shown in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This article uses Fuzzy AHP to identify the best areas to install renewable energy plants in Uganda. The study is interesting but the manuscript has to be revised to be published. There are some major issues to be solved:
1.- Language must be revised. There are poorly constructed or unnecessary phrases that repeat information, especially in the introduction.
2.- The abstract must be rewritten. The aim of the work should emphasize the methodology rather than the application. The role of the experts needs to be clarified, whether they choose the areas or study or weigh the criteria. The criteria and sub-criteria considered must be explained as it is one of the contributions of the work and the key to the results obtained.
3.- The introduction, like the abstract, must emphasize more the procedure and the criteria. The results are not be the main novelty but the method. A final paragraph of the introduction that introduces the organization of the rest of the paper is missing.
4.- Data and methods must be separated into different chapters
5.- It is necessary to differentiate the data sources that are used to assess the areas of the evaluation of the experts who evaluate the weights of the criteria, since conceptually they are two different things.
6.- It should be highlighted and clarified what the experts evaluate, the criteria, the sub-criteria or both.
7.- It must be clarified how the areas that are evaluated are defined and whether or not they are directly administrative divisions. Is the whole area evaluated as an average regarding each subcriterion or an exact location has been predefined within each area? If so, who has done it?
8.- It must be clarified who defined the criteria and sub-criteria, whether they were the authors or was part of the expert consultations.
9.- The maps included in the current chapter 2 do not exactly correspond to the subcriteria. It needs to be clarified and seen exactly how each sub-criterion is evaluated. For example, climate or available renewable energy potentials.
10.- Table B2 and Table C1 should have exactly the same rows, so that the equivalence is clearly seen. Both tables should be in the memory, not an appendix, as it is a key contribution of the paper. Figure 15 is not required if Table B2 is placed on the paper. The paper should explain how the rankings in table C1 have been defined, who decided.
11.- The explanation of AHP and Fuzzy AHP on paper is too long. This is not a contribution of the authors, and therefore part of the explanation and of the mathematical transformations can go to an appendix, in the main manuscript only the basic explanations and keys should be left.
12.- The results must clarify how the facilities are dimensioned within an area
13.- The conclusions must be reviewed in relation to all the previous comments, clarify the methodology, the choice of criteria, the role of the experts, etc.…
Author Response
Response the comments of reviewer2 is shown in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The submitted paper presents an interesting case study of an important real-world multi-criteria decision-making problem. The authors provide a solution obtained with the help of a well-known AHP method and its fuzzy variant.
Please correct:
The formula (1) presenting the membership function of triangular numbers contains mistakes (missing part for right 0 value, wrong part for left 0 value).
English should be polished. Please avoid beginning sentence with "And" (e.g., Page 2.54, Page 2.71, Page 3.139).
Author Response
Response the comments of reviewer3 is shown in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed all my concerns and I think the paper can be accepted with current version
Author Response
The authors thank so much for your consideration. We are so appreciate for your acceptation of revision 1.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This article uses Fuzzy AHP to identify the best areas to install renewable energy plants in Uganda. The study is interesting, but there are still major issues to be solved and some comments have not been properly addressed.
- It should be highlighted and clarified what the experts evaluate, the criteria, the sub-criteria or both. New explanations fail to clarify this point
- The maps included do not exactly correspond to the sub-criteria. It needs to be clarified and seen exactly how each sub-criterion is evaluated. For example, there is no “climate map” and or available renewable energy potentials. New explanations fail to clarify this point
- Table 1 and Table 4 should have exactly the same rows, so that the equivalence is clearly seen.The revised version has not addressed this comment
- The explanation of AHP and Fuzzy AHP on paper is too long. This is not a contribution of the authors, and therefore part of the explanation and of the mathematical transformations can go to an appendix, in the main manuscript only the basic explanations and keys should be left. The revised version has not addressed at all this comment
- The conclusions must be reviewed in relation to all the previous comments, clarify the methodology, the choice of criteria, the role of the experts, etc.…The revised version has not addressed this comment
Author Response
Dear Reviewer2
The authors extend their deep gratitude to the reviewer for taking time to review the revised manuscript (R1) and for the valuable comments to bring clarity in this work. We have considered and addressed all the comments to improve the quality of this revised manuscript. The comments from the reviewer have been significantly addressed as shown in attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
