Green Hydrogen in Jordan: Stakeholder Perspectives on Technological, Infrastructure, and Economic Barriers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses a highly topical and under-researched context: green hydrogen deployment in a Middle Eastern developing country such as Jordan. While stakeholder surveys are novel for Jordan, similar methodologies are increasingly common in energy transition research. The novelty lies more in geographical application than in methodological innovation. Besides, the incorporation of cross-sectoral viewpoints (industry, government, academia) strengthens the originality of this paper.

However, this paper can be accepted if the following recommendations will be taken into consideraion:   

1. Improve grammar and formatting  : - Misuse of punctuation (e.g., repeated use of Jordans´ with an accent instead of apostrophe). -Occasional wordiness or awkward phrasing. - Typographic issues in abstracts and headings (due to formatting).
2. Enhance referencing: Add 4–6 high-impact global hydrogen modeling reports and IEA/IRENA analyses to contextualize cost and infrastructure barriers.
3. Triangulate findings: Incorporate simulation/modeling or cite existing techno-economic models alongside survey insights. The manuscript lacks scenario modeling or projections, which would increase strategic depth and appeal to planners. Besides, the findings are heavily reliant on perceptions; it would benefit from coupling with quantitative techno-economic modeling.
4.  Expand discussion: the manuscript could be enhanced by better integrating comparative analyses with other MENA countries such as Morocco, Egypt, or Omanto deepen originality.
5. Improve presentation: - Some figures lack precise labels, titles, or captions (e.g., Figure 5: unclear y-axis scale). -No tables are included — a comparative summary table of barriers across technology, infrastructure, and economics would improve readability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No Comments

Author Response

COMMENT 1

Improve grammar and formatting : - Misuse of punctuation (e.g., repeated use of Jordans´ with an accent instead of apostrophe). -Occasional wordiness or awkward phrasing. - Typographic issues in abstracts and headings (due to formatting).

RESPONSE 1

Thank you for highlighting the grammar, punctuation, and formatting issues throughout the manuscript. We agree with this comment and have systematically revised the document to address these concerns. All instances of incorrect apostrophe usage have been corrected, sentences with awkward phrasing have been streamlined for clarity, and all typographic inconsistencies in headings and the abstract have been standardized according to academic formatting requirements. The revised manuscript maintains proper academic tone while eliminating the grammatical and formatting issues you identified, with all changes marked in red for easy review.

COMMENT 2

Enhance referencing: Add 4–6 high-impact global hydrogen modeling reports and IEA/IRENA analyses to contextualize cost and infrastructure barriers.

RESPONSE 2

Thank you for this valuable suggestion to strengthen our manuscript's theoretical foundation and global contextualization. We agree with this comment and have significantly enhanced the referencing throughout the manuscript by incorporating high-impact global hydrogen modeling reports and comprehensive IEA/IRENA analyses. We have added multiple authoritative sources, including the IEA's Global Hydrogen Review 2024, IEA's Northwest European Hydrogen Monitor 2025, IRENA's Quality Infrastructure Roadmap 2024, IRENA's Global Trade in Green Hydrogen Derivatives report 2024, and IRENA's Geopolitics of the Energy Transformation report. Additionally, we have incorporated national Jordanian documents and official publications, including the Economic Modernization Vision 2023–2033, the National Energy Strategy 2020–2030, and Jordan's draft National Green Hydrogen Strategy 2023, which provide essential national policy context and strategic frameworks. These additions have been strategically integrated into the Background and Motivation subsection and National Context subsection to offer a comprehensive global and national context supporting our findings within the broader international hydrogen development landscape and Jordan's specific policy environment. All changes are red in the revised manuscript for easy identification and review.

COMMENT 3

Triangulate findings: Incorporate simulation/modeling or cite existing techno-economic models alongside survey insights. The manuscript lacks scenario modeling or projections, which would increase strategic depth and appeal to planners. Besides, the findings are heavily reliant on perceptions; it would benefit from coupling with quantitative techno-economic modeling.

RESPONSE 3

We thank the reviewer for this important and constructive observation. The current study was designed to capture expert stakeholder perceptions through a structured survey instrument and did not incorporate simulation-based modeling or quantitative techno-economic analysis. We agree that integrating such models would further enrich the findings by triangulating perceptual data with system-level projections and cost simulations. To acknowledge this limitation, we have explicitly noted in the revised manuscript (in red text) that a follow-up study focusing on techno-economic modeling is recommended. This future research direction would build upon the present study’s stakeholder-driven insights and provide a more comprehensive basis for strategic planning and investment decision-making.

COMMENT 4

Expand discussion: the manuscript could be enhanced by better integrating comparative analyses with other MENA countries such as Morocco, Egypt, or Oman to deepen originality.

RESPONSE 4

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We fully agree that expanding the discussion to include a regional comparative dimension improves the manuscript's originality and policy relevance. In response, we added a new subsection in the Discussion section that compares Jordan’s green hydrogen landscape with Morocco, Egypt, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. This comparative analysis highlights shared and divergent technology, infrastructure, and economic challenges. To support this section, we incorporated recent peer-reviewed studies and policy reports. We also introduced a comprehensive table summarizing the main barriers and proposed solutions across the five countries. This addition helps situate Jordan’s position within the regional hydrogen transition and enhances the manuscript’s strategic utility for policymakers and researchers. All additions are marked in red in the revised manuscript.

COMMENT 5

Improve presentation: - Some figures lack precise labels, titles, or captions (e.g., Figure 5: unclear y-axis scale). -No tables are included — a comparative summary table of barriers across technology, infrastructure, and economics would improve readability.

RESPONSE 5 

We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. In response, we revised Figures 3, 5, and 10 to improve clarity and visual consistency. Specifically, we corrected axis labeling, enhanced title precision, and adjusted graphical elements to ensure better legibility. In addition, we have introduced a new summary table (now included in Section 4.7: Summary of Key Findings) that synthesizes the main barriers across technological, infrastructure, and economic dimensions. This table complements the narrative results and improves accessibility for readers seeking a concise comparative overview. All revisions appear in red in the manuscript. We appreciate this suggestion, which has significantly enhanced the quality of the presentation.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides a comprehensive empirical analysis of green hydrogen development in Jordan, focusing on stakeholder perspectives regarding technological, infrastructural, and economic barriers.  The research is well-structured, methodologically sound, and contributes valuable insights to the field of renewable energy and hydrogen economy in developing countries.  However, some areas require further clarification, refinement, or expansion to meet the standards of a high-impact SCI journal.

1. The study surveyed 52 professionals, but the distribution (private industry 36%, government 32%, academia 18%, NGOs 12%, consultants 2%) may not fully represent all key sectors. Were any major stakeholders (e.g., international investors, utility companies) underrepresented?
2. The ANOVA and chi-square tests are appropriate, but more details on survey design (e.g., Likert scale structure, question phrasing) should be provided to ensure reproducibility.
3. How do the identified barriers (e.g., $3.13–4.42/kg LCOH) compare with other MENA countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Morocco)? A brief comparative analysis would strengthen the discussion.

4.While PEM is favored for intermittent renewable integration, the cost comparison with AEL and AEM lacks quantitative data (e.g., CAPEX/OPEX breakdown). Could the authors provide a table summarizing efficiency, cost, and scalability for each technology?

5.Seawater desalination is proposed, but its energy demand (kWh/m³) and impact on LCOH are not quantified. A sensitivity analysis would enhance the discussion.

6.The $5–7 billion investment estimate for 2030 lacks a breakdown (e.g., electrolyzers vs. grid upgrades vs. transport). A cost distribution model would improve feasibility assessment.

7.The study mentions "unresolved safety standards" and "cross-border trade protocols." Are there specific policy bottlenecks (e.g., permitting delays, lack of subsidies) that need elaboration?

8.Aqaba’s role as an export hub is highlighted, but no analysis is provided on potential demand from Europe/Asia or competition with other hydrogen-exporting nations.

9.Page 1, Abstract: "This study investigates the major technological, infrastructural, and economic challenges facing green hydrogen production in Jordan, a resource-constrained yet renewable-rich country."

→ Suggestion: "This study investigates the major technological, infrastructural, and economic challenges facing green hydrogen production in Jordan—a resource-constrained yet renewable-rich country." (Em dash for emphasis.)

Page 3, Section 2.1.1: "Variability in power supply can reduce electrolyzer efficiency and compromise system longevity, particularly under frequent start-stop cycling."

→ Suggestion: "Power supply variability can reduce electrolyzer efficiency and compromise system longevity, particularly under frequent start-stop cycles." (More concise.)

Page 6, Section 3.6.1: "Cost perceptions followed a trimodal distribution."

→ Clarify: "Cost perceptions followed a trimodal distribution (low, moderate, high)."

10.Page 4, Section 2.1.3: "These innovations are essential for enabling hydrogen production in arid regions and underscore the importance of integrated water-energy planning in Jordan’s hydrogen strategy."

→ Clarify: "These innovations are critical for enabling hydrogen production in arid regions like Jordan and highlight the necessity of integrated water-energy planning in the national hydrogen strategy."

11.Provide the survey questionnaire in an appendix.

Share raw data (anonymized) for transparency.

12.Suggest a follow-up study on pilot projects (e.g., Aqaba’s desalination-coupled electrolysis).

Author Response

COMMENT 1

The study surveyed 52 professionals, but the distribution (private industry 36%, government 32%, academia 18%, NGOs 12%, consultants 2%) may not fully represent all key sectors. Were any major stakeholders (e.g., international investors, utility companies) underrepresented?

RESPONSE 1

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful observation. The sample for this study was designed to reflect a broad cross-section of the Jordanian energy ecosystem, including stakeholders from government, industry, academia, and civil society. While this distribution ensures diversity of perspectives, we acknowledge that certain stakeholder groups- particularly utility companies and international investors- were underrepresented in the current sample. The study focused primarily on capturing the views of domestic experts with firsthand experience in Jordan's energy transition. We agree that including international investors and utility operators would add valuable dimensions to the analysis and should be prioritized in future research. From an implementation perspective, these groups could provide critical insights into financing dynamics, infrastructure readiness, and project bankability.

COMMENT 2

The ANOVA and chi-square tests are appropriate, but more details on survey design (e.g., Likert scale structure, question phrasing) should be provided to ensure reproducibility.

RESPONSE 2

We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In response, we have revised Section 3.3: Survey Instrument Design to provide greater clarity on the structure and format of the questionnaire. The updated text (now shown in red in the manuscript) specifies that the survey employed a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from “ Strongly Disagree” to “ Strongly Agree”) and included multiple-choice questions with select all that apply” options. We also added details regarding the average number of items per section, the presence of open-ended questions, and the consent procedure followed for participants. These additions strengthen the reproducibility and transparency of our methodology. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, which has contributed meaningfully to improving the manuscript.

COMMENT 3

How do the identified barriers (e.g., $3.13–4.42/kg LCOH) compare with other MENA countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Morocco)? A brief comparative analysis would strengthen the discussion.

RESPONSE 3

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We agree that including a comparative cost and barrier analysis adds important context to our findings. In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated subsection to the Discussion that examines how Jordan’s reported LCOH and related barriers compare with those in Morocco, Egypt, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. This section outlines differences in Levelized Cost of Hydrogen estimates and elaborates on the region's technological readiness, infrastructure development, and investment environments. We also included a summary table to present these comparisons and illustrate where Jordan aligns with or diverges from its regional peers. All new content in the revised manuscript has been added in red for clarity.

COMMENT 4

While PEM is favored for intermittent renewable integration, the cost comparison with AEL and AEM lacks quantitative data (e.g., CAPEX/OPEX breakdown). Could the authors provide a table summarizing efficiency, cost, and scalability for each technology?

RESPONSE 4

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In response, we have added a new paragraph and Table 6 in the Discussion section, presenting a comparative summary of AEL, PEM, and AEM electrolyzers across CAPEX, OPEX, efficiency, and scalability. The data are sourced from IRENA (2020) and clarify the trade-offs among the technologies. All additions appear in red in the revised manuscript.

COMMENT 5

Seawater desalination is proposed, but its energy demand (kWh/m³) and impact on LCOH are not quantified. A sensitivity analysis would enhance the discussion.

RESPONSE 5

Thank you for this important observation. We fully agree that quantifying the energy demand and cost implications of seawater desalination enhances the rigor of our techno-economic analysis, particularly for a water-scarce country like Jordan. Accordingly, we have expanded the Discussion section under the “Technology and Infrastructure Alignment” subsection by adding a new paragraph addressing desalination processes' energy intensity and their effect on the Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH). We specify that desalination energy requirements typically range from 3 to 10 kWh/m³, depending on the technology used, and that this additional energy input can materially influence the overall system efficiency and hydrogen production cost. To strengthen the analysis, we cite recent studies, including Xu et al. (2025) and Dokhani et al. (2023), that explore sensitivity assessments and integration strategies for desalination-electrolyzer coupling.

COMMENT 6

The $5–7 billion investment estimate for 2030 lacks a breakdown (e.g., electrolyzers vs. grid upgrades vs. transport). A cost distribution model would improve feasibility assessment.

RESPONSE 6

Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that a breakdown of the $5–7 billion investment estimate enhances the manuscript’s feasibility and planning relevance. Accordingly, we have revised the “Policy and Financing” subsection within the Infrastructure Challenges section to include a cost distribution model. The new paragraph (added in red in the manuscript) estimates approximate allocations across four critical categories: electrolyzer deployment, grid upgrades, water and desalination infrastructure, and hydrogen transport/export logistics. This breakdown is based on the synthesis of stakeholder expectations and guidance from recent techno-economic studies by IRENA and IEA.

COMMENT 7

The study mentions "unresolved safety standards" and "cross-border trade protocols." Are there specific policy bottlenecks (e.g., permitting delays, lack of subsidies) that need elaboration?

RESPONSE 7

Thank you for this valuable observation. We agree that elaborating on specific policy bottlenecks adds depth to the policy discussion and enhances the manuscript’s utility for decision-makers. To address this, we have expanded the “Policy and Financing” subsection with a new paragraph (added in red) that outlines key regulatory and institutional barriers identified by stakeholders. These include slow permitting processes for hydrogen and renewable energy infrastructure, the absence of production subsidies or tax incentives, and limited inter-agency coordination. We also highlight the lack of a central hydrogen regulatory body and underdeveloped frameworks for green finance and cross-border trade. This additional detail reinforces our conclusion that governance reform is critical to unlocking hydrogen investment and deployment in Jordan. For clarity, the new paragraph appears in red in the revised manuscript.

COMMENT 8

Aqaba’s role as an export hub is highlighted, but no analysis is provided on potential demand from Europe/Asia or competition with other hydrogen-exporting nations.

RESPONSE 8

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. To address it, we added a paragraph at the end of the “Comparative Analysis with MENA Peers” subsection, discussing projected demand from Europe, Japan, and South Korea, and comparing Jordan’s export potential with peers like Oman and Saudi Arabia. The analysis draws on recent IRENA and IEA studies and highlights how Aqaba’s logistics and timing could align with global market needs. All changes appear in red in the revised manuscript.

COMMENT 9

Page 1, Abstract: "This study investigates the major technological, infrastructural, and economic challenges facing green hydrogen production in Jordan, a resource-constrained yet renewable-rich country."… → Suggestion: "This study investigates the major technological, infrastructural, and economic challenges facing green hydrogen production in Jordan—a resource-constrained yet renewable-rich country." (Em dash for emphasis.) Page 3, Section 2.1.1: "Variability in power supply can reduce electrolyzer efficiency and compromise system longevity, particularly under frequent start-stop cycling." → Suggestion: "Power supply variability can reduce electrolyzer efficiency and compromise system longevity, particularly under frequent start-stop cycles." (More concise.) Page 6, Section 3.6.1: "Cost perceptions followed a trimodal distribution." → Clarify: "Cost perceptions followed a trimodal distribution (low, moderate, high)."

RESPONSE 9

Thank you for these helpful editorial suggestions, which improve the clarity and conciseness of the manuscript. We have implemented the recommended changes. All modifications appear in red in the revised manuscript.

COMMENT 10

Page 4, Section 2.1.3: "These innovations are essential for enabling hydrogen production in arid regions and underscore the importance of integrated water-energy planning in Jordan’s hydrogen strategy." → Clarify: "These innovations are critical for enabling hydrogen production in arid regions like Jordan and highlight the necessity of integrated water-energy planning in the national hydrogen strategy."

RESPONSE 10

Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that the revised sentence improves geographic specificity and strengthens the policy-oriented phrasing. We have updated the sentence in Section 2.1.3 accordingly.

COMMENT 11

Provide the survey questionnaire in an appendix. Share raw data (anonymized) for transparency…..

RESPONSE 11

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. In response, the full survey questionnaire has been included in the manuscript as an appendix. Additionally, anonymized raw data have been made publicly available through the Open Science Framework (OSF) at the following link: https://osf.io/6vyd2/?view_only=d5d5a4e45f7348d58b53a25cb9051aa4

COMMENT 12

Suggest a follow-up study on pilot projects (e.g., Aqaba’s desalination-coupled electrolysis).

RESPONSE 12

We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. In response, we have added a new subsection titled “Future Research Directions and Pilot Integration” at the end of the Conclusion. It outlines five priority areas: desalination-electrolysis integration in Aqaba and other pilot-scale initiatives. The additions appear in red in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the paper: Green Hydrogen in Jordan: Stakeholder Perspectives on Technological, Infrastructure, and Economic Barriers

energies-3706427

Dear Authors,

As your reviewer, I have a comment regarding the connection of the title of the work with the structure of the literature review, here is the note:

Note 1 (main): In the title of the work you mention technology, infrastructure and economic barriers, and in section 2: Lite. Review. There are technological and infrastructural conditions, but there is no barrier, and there is a section: 2.3. Economic Challenges. I believe that this section should have another 2.4 Economic barriers. Based on the literature review, you can list these barriers, also mentioning the energy crisis about (The Influence of the Global Energy Crisis on Energy Efficiency…) or about barriers of RES (Barriers to Renewable Energy Source (RES) Installations ...) including barriers of green hydrogen. Sort the barriers into: political, administrative, economic etc.

Note 2 (main) Now about Results: in the section: 3.7. Summary of Key Findings. Add to this section a summary table with all results, especially barriers divided into sections (areas of your research).

Note 3 (main) before section3 Results, the section Methodology of Research should be. In this section the fig with the process of research should be and research questions, in the form RQ1…? RQ2…? RQ3… (number, your decision).

 

Best wishes

Reviewer

Author Response

Comment 1: 

Note 1 (main): In the title of the work you mention technology, infrastructure and economic barriers, and in section 2: Lite. Review. There are technological and infrastructural conditions, but there is no barrier, and there is a section: 2.3. Economic Challenges. I believe that this section should have another 2.4 Economic barriers. Based on the literature review, you can list these barriers, also mentioning the energy crisis about (The Influence of the Global Energy Crisis on Energy Efficiency…) or about barriers of RES (Barriers to Renewable Energy Source (RES) Installations ...) including barriers of green hydrogen. Sort the barriers into: political, administrative, economic etc.

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable and insightful suggestion. We agree that the structure of the literature review should explicitly align with the barrier-based framing of the title and better reflect the scope of constraints addressed in the study. To handle this, we have added a new subsection titled "2.4 Economic and Policy Barriers" at the end of the literature review. This new section consolidates insights from existing references cited in the manuscript to discuss cross-cutting political, administrative, and economic barriers to green hydrogen deployment in Jordan. The section reinforces the coherence between the title and the body of the paper and appears in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2:
Note 2 (main) Now about Results: in the section: 3.7. Summary of Key Findings. Add to this section a summary table with all results, especially barriers divided into sections (areas of your research).
Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In alignment with your recommendation, a summary table has already been added to the “Summary of Key Findings” subsection. This table synthesizes all major barriers identified in the study and organizes them across the core thematic areas—technological, infrastructural, economic, and policy-related. It also provides corresponding insights from stakeholders. The table in the revised manuscript appears in red font.

Comment 3:
Note 3 (main) before section3 Results, the section Methodology of Research should be. In this section the fig with the process of research should be and research questions, in the form RQ1…? RQ2…? RQ3… (number, your decision)
Response 3:

We thank the reviewer for this constructive and insightful suggestion. In response, we added a new section titled “Materials and Methods” before the Results section to clarify the research design and analytical approach. Concerning the research questions, we fully agree that clearly articulating them is essential to framing the study’s scope. After careful consideration, we determined that their placement fits most naturally within the subsection “Objectives of This Study” at the end of the Introduction. We now explicitly present the three central research questions (RQ1–RQ3), which are directly aligned with the study’s thematic focus on technological, infrastructural, and economic barriers. The revised manuscript shows all changes in red. We are grateful for your suggestion, which improved the clarity and organization of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has addressed several key points from the initial review, enhancing its academic rigor and clarity. The study provides valuable empirical insights into green hydrogen development in Jordan, aligning with high-impact SCI journal standards. However, some critical issues remain unresolved or require further refinement. Below is a detailed evaluation of the revisions and additional recommendations.

1. No explicit discussion on whether international investors or utility companies were included.

Suggestion: Briefly acknowledge any limitations in stakeholder coverage (e.g., "While our sample included key domestic actors, future studies could incorporate perspectives from international investors or utility operators").

2. No sensitivity analysis is provided. Suggestion: Add a brief sensitivity analysis (e.g., "A 20% reduction in desalination energy demand could lower LCOH by $0.15–0.30/kg").

   3.Theoretical Contribution

The study empirically validates known barriers (water scarcity, grid limitations) but could better highlight novel insights (e.g., stakeholder optimism despite constraints).

Suggestion: Reframe the Discussion to emphasize how findings challenge or advance existing literature (e.g., "Contrary to techno-economic models, stakeholders perceive water scarcity as a critical barrier").

4. Policy Implications

The manuscript identifies policy gaps but could offer specific recommendations (e.g., "Jordan should establish a Hydrogen Regulatory Taskforce to streamline permitting").

The revised manuscript largely meets high-impact SCI standards but requires minor revisions: （1）Clarify stakeholder limitations (international investors/utilities). （2）Add a sensitivity analysis for desalination energy impact. （3）Include supplementary materials (questionnaire/data statement). （4）Strengthen theoretical/policy contributions in the Discussion.

Author Response

COMMENT 1:

No explicit discussion on whether international investors or utility companies were included.

Suggestion: Briefly acknowledge any limitations in stakeholder coverage (e.g., "While our sample included key domestic actors, future studies could incorporate perspectives from international investors or utility operators").

RESPONSE 1:

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful observation. Our sampling strategy focused on domestic experts across Jordan’s government, industry, academia, and civil society. Due to accessibility constraints during the data collection period, international investors and utility companies were not included in the respondent pool. However, the selected participants represent key institutions actively shaping Jordan’s hydrogen landscape. To acknowledge this limitation, we have added a clarifying statement in red at the end of Subsection 3.2 in the revised manuscript.

 

COMMENT 2:

No sensitivity analysis is provided. Suggestion: Add a brief sensitivity analysis (e.g., "A 20% reduction in desalination energy demand could lower LCOH by $0.15–0.30/kg").

RESPONSE 2:

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and constructive suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we now provide a more nuanced discussion of desalination energy impacts under the Technology and Infrastructure Alignment subsection. Drawing on recent literature, we clarify that while seawater desalination introduces additional energy and infrastructure requirements, its overall contribution to hydrogen production costs is minimal—typically representing a small share of total energy consumption.

Accordingly, we revised the paragraph to reflect that although improving desalination efficiency may have limited influence on the Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH), it remains important from a sustainability and system integration perspective. This clarification has been added in red in the revised manuscript.

 

COMMENT 3:

Theoretical Contribution

The study empirically validates known barriers (water scarcity, grid limitations) but could better highlight novel insights (e.g., stakeholder optimism despite constraints).

Suggestion: Reframe the Discussion to emphasize how findings challenge or advance existing literature (e.g., "Contrary to techno-economic models, stakeholders perceive water scarcity as a critical barrier").

RESPONSE 3:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In the revised Discussion and Comparative Analysis sections, we have more clearly articulated how the study advances existing literature, particularly by highlighting stakeholders’ elevated concern over water scarcity and their optimism despite structural barriers. These points are now marked in red in the manuscript.

 

COMMENT 4:

Policy Implications

The manuscript identifies policy gaps but could offer specific recommendations (e.g., "Jordan should establish a Hydrogen Regulatory Taskforce to streamline permitting").

RESPONSE 4:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In response, we have expanded the Economic and Policy Perspectives subsection to include concrete and actionable recommendations, such as establishing a national hydrogen regulatory task force, streamlining permitting, and developing dedicated investment platforms. These additions are now highlighted in red in the revised manuscriptز

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form