Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I personally enjoyed studying the manuscript: Fuzzy-based multivariate analysis for input modelling of risk assessment in wind farm projects. It would be great if the authors can explain more about the classification of the presented reliability methods, which are used in wind farm projects in the introduction. As they mentioned to wind farm projects, it could be a valid point to divide different scenarios such as manufacturing or maintenance and decommissioning and how the Fuzzy-based analysis affect the assessment. Do those assessments qualitative or quantitative? How these multivariate analyses affect strategies for data pooling and design optimisation in a wind farm project? I notice some typo in the text and it would be great if the authors reread the text carefully to avoid such a mistake.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Report

for the manuscript entitled

Fuzzy-Based Multivariate Analysis for Input 2 Modeling of Risk Assessment in Wind Farm Projects

 

Comments:

1. The mathematics behind of the proposed approach should be detailed.
2. The applied fuzzy logic needs further details.
3. How does the proposed approach minimize the expert judgment’s potential bias?
4. Figures, like Figure 11 should be discussed in detail, otherwise the conveyed message is not clear.
5. Lines 487-489, “Overall, the subject matter experts determined the proposed method to be representative, comprehensive…” How to test/measure the quality of this statement/decision?
6. In the Discussion section the findings need to be discussed in detail, the flexibility of the proposed approach and improvements in the existing ones are not clear from the discussion.
7. Conclusion should be straightforward, what was/were the questions to address and what are your findings? In the current case the conclusion does not provide enough familiarity of the findings.
8. Based on your proposed approach and relevant findings what are the corresponding policy suggestions/implications?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The article is interesting. An extensive literature review deserves much attention.

2. Does the article use relative or absolute sensitivity for the sensitivity analysis? Has the sensitivity been calculated numerically using the differential quotient of the function? It is worth including this information in the article to slightly increase the readability of the article.

3. I suggest correcting the patterns included in the article so that each of them is the same size.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all my comments.