Willingness to Pay for Alternative Energies in Uganda: Energy Needs and Policy Instruments towards Zero Deforestation 2030 and Climate Change^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript aims to o investigate the energy situation in Uganda and the willingness to pay for energy alternatives to reduce deforestation.

The research used a questionnaire to collect and analyze data collected between 2018 and 2019.

I recommend rejection of the article due to its low scientific quality.

Author Response

The author thanks the reviewer for his or her time to review the paper.

However, the author noted unprecedented bias, which could be intentional or not.

The reviewer did not find anything interesting about the paper. This is evidenced in the boxes ticked that everything was not applicable. Moreover, the reviewer added, "I recommend rejection of the article due to its low scientific quality."

With all due respect, the author disagrees with your observation which seems to be highly biased.

The author has not taken the comments lightly but went on to revise the manuscript.

Thank you for your understanding.

Reviewer 2 Report

What is the main question in the study?

The article addresses the problem of willingness to pay for alternative energy sources in Uganda, stresses the problem of energy needs and policy instruments aimed at reducing deforestation to zero by 2030. The aim of the article was to examine the energy situation in Uganda and the willingness to pay for alternative energy sources in order to reduce deforestation. The main question has not been presented, but it is probably related to the purpose of the article.

Is it relevant and interesting?

The discussed problem is currently very interesting, especially in Uganda, where, as the author emphasizes, more than 90% of households depend on wood fuels and charcoal for energy, and nearly 770 million Africans have no access to electricity.

Is the text original?

The text is original.

Is the article well written?

The article is written correctly.

Is the article clear and easy to read?

The article is reasonably easy to read.

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments?

The conclusions are in line with the conducted considerations.

Do they address the main question asked?

As noted at the beginning, the author did not present the main question, so the main question is for the reader to discover individually, which in the case of a clearly presented goal should not be a big problem.

1. In the abstract, please clearly write the purpose of the article and the research question or questions.

2. The study was conducted in the capital of Uganda - Kampala and the neighboring city of Wakiso on a sample of 1200 respondents.

However, the author did not indicate whether the study was representative or whether the sample was representative?

3. In the Questionnaire Interviews... section, the author wrote "Many experts reviewed...", many means how many?

4. The article does not present research hypotheses, please list a few (two, three ...) and place them in the abstract and in the Materials and methods section.

5. The section Results presents the characteristics of the research sample and describes two age groups: 24-36 years old and 36-48 years old, were there any people over 48 among the respondents? and why were these elderly people omitted?

6. I suggest that the data in Table 3, containing mainly the characteristics of the study group, be presented only in the description and abandoning this table, especially since these data are then also presented in charts.

7. In graphs 1, 5 and 6, please leave only the percentage data and remove the numerical data, because they confuse the perception of data from the graph (e.g. in graph 1: 112, 8%???, i.e. how much %??).

8. In the discussion, I propose to briefly refer to the research of other authors from other regions of the world, not only from Uganda and Africa, referring to forest cover, environmental protection, wood fuels, renewable energy. The more so that the author is an employee of the University of Brno in the Czech Republic.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suggestions for Authors

What is the main question in the study?

Response: Thank you very much for the observations and comments. The author has extensively improved the paper. Thanks to your willingness to review the paper and professionalism.

Main question: Are Ugandans willing to pay for energy alternatives to help conserve forests which are diminishing at a very high rate given the current climate change vulnerabilities in the country.

The article addresses the problem of willingness to pay for alternative energy sources in Uganda, stresses the problem of energy needs and policy instruments aimed at reducing deforestation to zero by 2030. The aim of the article was to examine the energy situation in Uganda and the willingness to pay for alternative energy sources in order to reduce deforestation. The main question has not been presented, but it is probably related to the purpose of the article.

Response: Thank you very much for the observations and comments.

The research questions have been added at the end of the introduction after the aim of the study.

 Is it relevant and interesting?

The discussed problem is currently very interesting, especially in Uganda, where, as the author emphasizes, more than 90% of households depend on wood fuels and charcoal for energy, and nearly 770 million Africans have no access to electricity.

Is the text original?

The text is original.

Is the article well written?

The article is written correctly.

Is the article clear and easy to read?

The article is reasonably easy to read.

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments?

The conclusions are in line with the conducted considerations.

Response: Thank you very much for the observations.

Do they address the main question asked?

As noted at the beginning, the author did not present the main question, so the main question is for the reader to discover individually, which in the case of a clearly presented goal should not be a big problem.

 Response: Yes, over 80% of the respondents were willing to pay for energy alternatives to help conserve forests which are diminishing at a very high rate given the current climate change vulnerability.

1. In the abstract, please clearly write the purpose of the article and the research question or questions.

Response:  The aim has been added to the abstract. However, the research questions have been added at the end of the introduction after the aim of the study.

2. The study was conducted in the capital of Uganda - Kampala and the neighboring city of Wakiso on a sample of 1200 respondents.

However, the author did not indicate whether the study was representative or whether the sample was representative?

Response: A representative sample of the population was used. Each member of the population had an equal chance to participate in the study. Added to the paper too.

3. In the Questionnaire Interviews... section, the author wrote "Many experts reviewed...", many means how many?

Response: 6 experts mainly from the university, and two from Ministry of environment, and  energy NGO helped in the revision of the tool respectively.

4. The article does not present research hypotheses, please list a few (two, three ...) and place them in the abstract and in the Materials and methods section.

Response: A hypothesis has been added in the abstract and at the end of the introduction. Both the hypothesis and research question have been added at the end of the introduction and methodology. The aim of the study to has been clarified in both section and the conclusion.

5. The section Results presents the characteristics of the research sample and describes two age groups: 24-36 years old and 36-48 years old, were there any people over 48 among the respondents? and why were these elderly people omitted?

Response: There were older people than 48years. This category was explained because it was more interesting. However further explanations in table 3 and Figure 7 and 10, express something more such as the older people willingness to pay for energy alternatives, and or bidding more.

6. I suggest that the data in Table 3, containing mainly the characteristics of the study group, be presented only in the description and abandoning this table, especially since these data are then also presented in charts.

Response: The data in table 3 is the heart of the descriptive statistics, it doesn’t matter how much the author explains! The table tells the whole story. I hope you let us keep it.

7. In graphs 1, 5 and 6, please leave only the percentage data and remove the numerical data, because they confuse the perception of data from the graph (e.g. in graph 1: 112, 8%???, i.e. how much %??).

Response: Corrected, values have been taken out and n left. See figures.

8. In the discussion, I propose to briefly refer to the research of other authors from other regions of the world, not only from Uganda and Africa, referring to forest cover, environmental protection, wood fuels, renewable energy. The more so that the author is an employee of the University of Brno in the Czech Republic.

Response: Works from Asia, and Europe has been consulted in the discussion e.g References 78 to 90 and second paragraph of the discussion section.

Thank you so much again for your utmost observations and comments, and above all professional advice.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting paper discussing the wiliness of people to pay for different forms of energy to provide suggestions to policy makers to adjust energy related development strategies. The manuscript is well organized and the results are clear. Please see my comments as follows.

1.     Do the authors think the methodology can be adopted for any other countries?

2.     Please include a nomenclature. There are many abbreviations and a nomenclature can help readers easily to locate those phrases.

Thanks.

Author Response

Review 3 and Responses.

This is an interesting paper discussing the wiliness of people to pay for different forms of energy to provide suggestions to policy makers to adjust energy related development strategies. The manuscript is well organized and the results are clear. Please see my comments as follows.

Response: The author appreciates your willingness to review the manuscript as well as your comments which have helped to improve the paper extensively.

1. Do the authors think the methodology can be adopted for any other countries?

Response: The method can potentially be applied elsewhere especially in the deforestation hotspots and energy poverty communities. Besides the main Contingent Valuation Method is applicable across a spectrum of resources’ valuation and policy tools development.

2. Please include a nomenclature. There are many abbreviations and a nomenclature can help readers easily to locate those phrases.

Response: Yes, nomenclature is very helpful. Before the abbreviations, a nomenclature is stated. The author went on to do the same for all sections for easy reading.

Thanks.

Response: Thank you very much too. Your professional observations and advice have helped the author to improve the paper extensively.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear author:

I think the abstract needs to be rewritten to provide a clearer understanding of the meaning of the article.

On the other hand, the Latin phrase ceteribus-paribus should be replaced by another, more direct and understandable phrase for the reader.

Finally, I consider the theme of the work very interesting.

Author Response

Review 4

Dear author:

Answer: The author appreciates the effort and time of the reviewer. The author is equally grateful for the comments and advice. The author has improved the manuscript in line with your advice.

I think the abstract needs to be rewritten to provide a clearer understanding of the meaning of the article.

Answer: Rewritten, see the abstract lines 13 to 18, see all section

On the other hand, the Latin phrase ceteribus-paribus should be replaced by another, more direct and understandable phrase for the reader.

Answer: Deleted

Finally, I consider the theme of the work very interesting.

Answer: Once again, thank you so much for the willingness to review the paper as well as your helpful observations.

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper includes the results of a survey of 1200 participants, where the Willingness to Pay for Energy Alternatives in Uganda is asked.
The raw data seems to be promising. Before publication, the data analysis should be extended and the results should be analyzed in relation to other scientific publications.

The following issues should be answered and resolved:

·         Line 10 and 497: The wording is too colloquial

·         Line 35: Pleas do not lump references

·         Figure 2: The unit for the Y axis is missing

_·          Line 141: Please use a lower case for CO₂

·         Line 191 – 219 should be part of section 2

·         Figure 4: The legend in the figure is not readable

·         Figure 7: A simple representation of the regression seems more appropriate

·         Line 443: Here it would be good to give a quantitative comparison with the other studies.

·         How much is paid for charcoal or firewood? Can you identify how much the extra willingness to pay or energy alternatives is?

·         The OLS model will perform well in the interpolation domain, how do we ensure that the extrapolation domain is also well mapped?

·         Some references are marked red, Figure 1 – 3 having all a complete different design. Please choose a uniform representation.

·         A description of the novelty of the paper is missing

Author Response

Review 5 and responses

The paper includes the results of a survey of 1200 participants, where the Willingness to Pay for Energy Alternatives in Uganda is asked. The raw data seems to be promising. Before publication, the data analysis should be extended and the results should be analyzed in relation to other scientific publications.

Response: The author is equally grateful for the comments and advice. The author has improved the manuscript in accordance with your advice. Thank you so much for the willingness to review the paper as well as your helpful observations. The data is very promising and we are preparing it for publication.

The following issues should be answered and resolved:

• Line 10 and 497: The wording is too colloquial

Response: An addition has been made and it is more clear.

• Line 35: Pleas do not lump references.

Response: Various studies have shade light on this topic that is why lump references are used. More so, it is acceptable by journal format among other important journals and studies.

• Figure 2: The unit for the Y axis is missing

Response: The units for the Y are shown in the label (M³). Moreover, it has been improved to make it clearer, see figures 2 and 3.

• Line 141: Please use a lower case for CO₂

Response: Corrected

• Line 191 – 219 should be part of section 2

Response: adjusted, see 280+

• Figure 4: The legend in the figure is not readable

Response: adjusted to readability.

• Figure 7: A simple representation of the regression seems more appropriate

Response: We tried to make it simple but a little more explanation is always good for readers to understand the chronology of the regression.

• Line 443: Here it would be good to give a quantitative comparison with the other studies.

 Response:  Discussion on quantitative comparisons has been added and so are the previous studies. See section.

How much is paid for charcoal or firewood? Can you identify how much the extra willingness to pay or energy alternatives is?

Response: The charcoal question in Uganda is a very difficult one given the different dynamics in society. A small basket goes for 2000U GX and yet cannot solve cooking problems of a household of five members according to cheap talk with respondents. Most reported using a bigger basket of 4000 UGX approximately $1.08 USD per day. More so, the majority mentioned that they buy a bag of charcoal for 120,000 UGX approximately $33.56 USD per month and this goes for a month or even more days. This amount of money can buy 12 Kilogram cylinder of gas from fuel stations in Uganda which could be enough for household cooking for a month and plus days. The same amount could suffice for hydroelectricity once the government policies focus on availability, accessibility, acceptability, and affordability (AAAA).

       Irrespective of the poverty levels in the country majority of the respondents were willing to pay, and this can be observed in the willingness to pay amount, and the rationale such as conserving depleting forests.

  The OLS model will perform well in the interpolation domain, how do we ensure that the extrapolation domain is also well mapped?

Response: Extrapolation is easily affected by significant fluctuations in the existing data. Extrapolated values can be unreliable, especially when there are disparities in the existing data sets. If the expected relationship does not hold in the extrapolation zone, the extension of a fitted regression equation beyond the range of the available data might result in seriously skewed results. Even if the relationship is valid, extrapolation can be highly imprecise, even when not biased.

• Some references are marked red, Figure 1 – 3 having all a complete different design. Please choose a uniform representation.

Response: The references have been corrected. Figures 1-3 have different designs because they represent different messages altogether.

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

The following points still need be covered:

• Line 35: Pleas do not lump references.

Response: Various studies have shade light on this topic that is why lump references are used. More so, it is acceptable by journal format among other important journals and studies.

If a study is citable, then there will also be an important statement that can be named. In the case of repetitive statements, reference can be made to the primary source

• Figure 4: The legend in the figure is not readable

Response: adjusted to readability.

Still unreadable

• Line 443: Here it would be good to give a quantitative comparison with the other studies.

 Response:  Discussion on quantitative comparisons has been added and so are the previous studies. See section.

Please use a table or digram to underline the comparison.

The answers to those two questions should be integrated into the paper.

How much is paid for charcoal or firewood? Can you identify how much the extra willingness to pay or energy alternatives is?  

The OLS model will perform well in the interpolation domain, how do we ensure that the extrapolation domain is also well mapped?

Some references are marked red, Figure 1 – 3 having all a complete different design. Please choose a uniform representation.

Response: The references have been corrected. Figures 1-3 have different designs because they represent different messages altogether.

The issue is not the diagram style, but the text color is differnt, units for the Y axes are missing

Author Response

The following points still need be covered:

The author appreciates your efforts, especially your observations. The majority of your recommendations have improved the manuscript to an even better version.

• Line 35: Pleas do not lump references.

Response: Various studies have shade light on this topic that is why lump references are used. More so, it is acceptable by journal format among other important journals and studies. If a study is citable, then there will also be an important statement that can be named. In the case of repetitive statements, reference can be made to the primary source

Response 2: More important statements have been added in some sections with lump references. See line 35+

 Figure 4: The legend in the figure is not readable

Still unreadable

Response: Corrected, see Lines 257 plus

• Line 443: Here it would be good to give a quantitative comparison with the other studies.

 Response:  Discussion on quantitative comparisons has been added and so are the previous studies. See section. Please use a table or digram to underline the comparison.

Respons 2: Table added with comparisons of estimates from various regions. See discussion section

The answers to those two questions should be integrated into the paper.

How much is paid for charcoal or firewood? Can you identify how much the extra willingness to pay or energy alternatives is?  The OLS model will perform well in the interpolation domain, how do we ensure that the extrapolation domain is also well mapped?

Response 2: Whereas we focused on WTP, given your advice, I went on to find the current prices of charcoal, for example. It is even almost expensive more than gas, for example. This explanation has been added which could be used to explain the extra WTP issue. This study did not focus on extra WTP. Hopefully, future studies will capture Extra WTP clearly. The author has, however, discussed the issue given some of the consulted studies captured additional WTP. See the discussion section. Lines 566+

Regarding OLS, extrapolation is about using the regression line to predict the X values in the data. However, there are many issues with this. It does not model the past. Therefore the current study wanted to confirm the results from the qualitative analysis with the OLS to confirm whether the independent variables influence the dependent variable. 

Some references are marked red, Figure 1 – 3 having all a complete different design. Please choose a uniform representation.

 Response: The references have been corrected. Figures 1-3 have different designs because they represent different messages altogether.

The issue is not the diagram style, but the text color is differnt, units for the Y axes are missing

Response 2: has been corrected, and figure 3 has been remade. See lines 92 to 101.

Many thanks, once again.

Round 3

Reviewer 5 Report

The missing points have been corrected. The paper may be accepteted in the current form.