Analysis of Strategic Directions in Sustainable Hydrogen Investment Decisions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim of the research is to identify and weigh up criteria for investments in the production of clean energy from hydrogen. I believe that the framework of the article is solid. However, an in-depth review is needed, especially in the paragraphs relating to the introduction and review of the literature, which certainly need to be implemented. I also believe that a revision of the English language is necessary, perhaps by submitting the text to a native speaker. I enclose the text in pdf with my comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewer 1

Reviewer Comment: The aim of the research is to identify and weigh up criteria for investments in the production of clean energy from hydrogen. I believe that the framework of the article is solid. However, an in-depth review is needed, especially in the paragraphs relating to the introduction and review of the literature, which certainly need to be implemented. I also believe that a revision of the English language is necessary, perhaps by submitting the text to a native speaker. I enclose the text in pdf with my comments.

Author Response: First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for her/his valuable comments. We have improved our study by considering each factor in the pdf file sent by the reviewer. The details of the improvements are given below.

1. We removed the expression of “are not found in the nature”.
2. We added references to the related part in the first paragraph.
3. We have corrected the wrong expression of “ad” as “and.
4. We have improved the paragraphs in the introduction part.
5. We explained the details of IVIF in the abstract because it is the first place.
6. Grammatical errors in the introduction part are corrected.
7. The sentence of “This section is an introductory part and basic information about the subject is included.” is removed.
8. “Literature on Hydrogen Energy Investment” part is rewritten. In this framework, all grammatical errors are corrected. Additionally, the expressions are improved. Moreover, new studies are added.
9. For “2.2. Literature on Methodology” part, we gave examples to the “other similar methods”.
10. For “2.2. Literature on Methodology” part, we corrected the sentences based on reviewer’s comments.
11. For “2.2. Literature on Methodology” part, the expression of “quite low” is removed.
12. The mistakes in the equations (13) and (14) are corrected.
13. The part of “4.1. Defining the Significant Factors of Hydrogen Energy Investments” is removed from the study.
14. Table 1 is transferred to 2.3 based on the reviewer’s comments.
15. The expression of “(DM)” is removed.
16. The expression of “IVIF sets” is specified. Necessary explanation is added to this part. New part is given below.

“In addition to them, IVIF sets for the dimensions and criteria are defined on Tables A9-A12. After defining optimistic and pessimistic values of linguistic evaluations, the boundaries are linguistic terms are illustrated for dimensions and criteria. Belonging and non-belonging degrees for linguistic evaluations with IVIF sets are generated for constructing hesitant 2-tuple IVIF relation matrix.”

17. The way of generating income relation map is identified. For this purpose, the following expression is considered.

“In this context, average (D-E) value is calculated by using the equations (13) and (14). After that, it is compared with the values in total relation matrix. In this regard, for the values that are greater than average value, it is identified that the first criterion is influencing other one.”

18. In “Discussion and Conclusion” part, the reference is given for the expression of “Since it does not emit carbon gas into the atmosphere”.
19. In “Discussion and Conclusion” part, other alternatives are explained as “oil and natural gas”.
20. In “Discussion and Conclusion” part, the reference is given for the expression of “must be separated from the compound to obtain it.”
21. In “Discussion and Conclusion” part, the expression of “technically sufficient” is corrected.
22. In “Discussion and Conclusion” part, the expressions highlighted by the reviewer are corrected.
23. Additionally, a native speaker made proofreading for the article. She corrected many different expressions in the study. Hence, it is thought that the level of English is improved significantly.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

A language review is required, chiefly with respect to terminology (e,g,. matrices, criterion etc.).

The limitations of the study are not convincing and neither is the presentation of the usefulness of the research in the energy field, which, in our view, barely scratches the surface.

The literature review hardly supports the methodological approach, or the factual dimensions of the article.

 

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewer 2

Reviewer Comment: A language review is required, chiefly with respect to terminology (e,g,. matrices, criterion etc.).

The limitations of the study are not convincing and neither is the presentation of the usefulness of the research in the energy field, which, in our view, barely scratches the surface.

The literature review hardly supports the methodological approach, or the factual dimensions of the article.

Author Response: First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for her/his valuable comments. According to the reviewer comments, we made significant improvements to the study. In this framework, we have almost rewritten “Introduction” and “Literature Review” parts. We have added some new studies in the literature part. Moreover, the expressions are explained in a detail. Hence, it is thought that with this new form, the literature review supports the methodological approach. Additionally, a native speaker made proofreading to the study. She corrected many different expressions in the study. Hence, it is thought that the level of English is improved significantly. Finally, we have also updated to the discussion and conclusion parts. In this regard, we detailed the limitations of the study.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments to Authors:

Ref. No.: sustainability-809309

 

Title: Hesitant 2-tuple interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets-based analysis of strategic production directions for multidimensional issues in sustainable hydrogen investment decisions

 

Overview and general recommendation:

In this manuscript, the authors presented a hesitant IVIF DEMATEL methodology to evaluate the different factors that may affect sustainable hydrogen investment decisions. In this study, nice factors from three different dimensions were evaluated and the possible causal relationship between the factors was identified. This study will provide us some insight into what strategy we should implement to support the development of hydrogen energy. However, the nice factors identified by the authors are not objective enough, which cannot fully reflect the key factors that influence sustainable hydrogen investment decisions. For example, the safety of hydrogen energy will affect hydrogen investment, but it is not considered in this study. Before accepting this manuscript, the authors should objectively identify those factors first, and then they should have enough number of experts for the interview to help evaluate different factors.

 

Major comments:

1. The authors should objectively identify those factors that may influence hydrogen investment decisions. Or at least, for those factors that have already been identified in the manuscript, the authors need to prove that they are objective enough and thorough enough for this study. In the current version of the manuscript, it is more like that the authors listed those factors first, and then conducted the literature review to support those factors, which makes this study not objective enough. The oil industry has been developed for a long time, which may give the authors some ideas on how to define those factors for the hydrogen industry.
2. For the expert interview, three persons may not be enough. The hydrogen energy industry is already very complex, involving downstream, midstream, and upstream. The experts who are familiar with the policy, the public, and the market, may also have different opinions. Please identify the optimal number of experts for the interviews for this analysis. Or the authors need to explain why three experts are enough for this study.
3. Literature on Hydrogen Energy Investment is not well organized. The authors need to make their points clear in each paragraph.
4. For Eqs. 13 and 14, the authors need to make it clear what criteria they used for determining the causality relationship between the factors.
5. Some language in this manuscript is not precise. For example, for “Hydrogen has taken its place in these studies because it has many features unlike other renewable energy sources” in 2. Literature Review, if the authors make a statement like this, they should also mention what these features are. And hydrogen cannot be used in every field. There are indeed certain limitations to the application of hydrogen. Please make all statements in this manuscript as precise as you can.
6. The language used in this manuscript is not fluent, which makes it hard for the readers to follow the thoughts of the authors. Please revise the language carefully, if possible with the professional assistance in writing.

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewer 3

Reviewer Comment 1: In this manuscript, the authors presented a hesitant IVIF DEMATEL methodology to evaluate the different factors that may affect sustainable hydrogen investment decisions. In this study, nice factors from three different dimensions were evaluated and the possible causal relationship between the factors was identified. This study will provide us some insight into what strategy we should implement to support the development of hydrogen energy. However, the nice factors identified by the authors are not objective enough, which cannot fully reflect the key factors that influence sustainable hydrogen investment decisions. For example, the safety of hydrogen energy will affect hydrogen investment, but it is not considered in this study. Before accepting this manuscript, the authors should objectively identify those factors first, and then they should have enough number of experts for the interview to help evaluate different factors.

The authors should objectively identify those factors that may influence hydrogen investment decisions. Or at least, for those factors that have already been identified in the manuscript, the authors need to prove that they are objective enough and thorough enough for this study. In the current version of the manuscript, it is more like that the authors listed those factors first, and then conducted the literature review to support those factors, which makes this study not objective enough. The oil industry has been developed for a long time, which may give the authors some ideas on how to define those factors for the hydrogen industry.

Author Response 1: First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for her/his valuable comments. In this study, firstly, literature is evaluated in a detailed manner. After that, a list of criteria that can affect hydrogen energy investment strategies is identified based on the literature review. As a result of the literature review, 9 different criteria are identified for 3 dimensions that are managerial, technical and financial. On the other side, these 9 criteria include some significant factors. For instance, the case of security is taken into account in storage and logistic criterion. In other words, the names of the criteria are generalized. Hence, in new form of the study, more detailed information is given in Table 1. Within this context, the criteria are defined with a new column. With this new form, we believe that the details of the criteria are more open for the readers. Additionally, supported literature are increased.

 

Reviewer Comment 2: For the expert interview, three persons may not be enough. The hydrogen energy industry is already very complex, involving downstream, midstream, and upstream. The experts who are familiar with the policy, the public, and the market, may also have different opinions. Please identify the optimal number of experts for the interviews for this analysis. Or the authors need to explain why three experts are enough for this study.

Author Response 2: While making analysis with fuzzy logic, the qualification of the experts plays an essential role. In other words, in these evaluations, the qualifications of the experts are more significant than the number of these people. For this purpose, we created new table (Table 2) in which the details related to the experts are given. Table 2 states that the experts have at least 15 years of experience in the field of hydrogen energy. These experts are middle and top managers in the industry and also academics who work on hydrogen energy. Therefore, it is understood that the expert team that evaluates are quite competent in the strategies to be developed for hydrogen energy investments. On the other side, in lots of the studies in the literature in which fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods are considered, 3 different experts made evaluations. We have given lots of references for this situation. In addition to this issue, some studies are also cited related to the energy investment in which 3 expert made evaluations. Hence, it is thought that the evaluations of 3 experts are quite enough in such analysis.

 

Reviewer Comment 3: Literature on Hydrogen Energy Investment is not well organized. The authors need to make their points clear in each paragraph.

Author Response 3: According to the reviewer’s comments, “Literature on Hydrogen Energy Investment” part is rewritten. In this framework, all grammatical errors are corrected. Additionally, the expressions are improved. Moreover, new studies are added. The organization of this part is detailed as following.

- 1. Paragraph: The advantages of hydrogen energy investments

- 2. Paragraph: managerial factors can be effective in investment strategies for hydrogen energy (monitoring market development, understanding customer expectations, awareness)

- 3. Paragraph: managerial factors can be effective in investment strategies for hydrogen energy (considering different ideas in the company, brainstorming, acceptance)

- 4. Paragraph: technical factors can be effective in investment strategies for hydrogen energy (the storage and logistic of hydrogen energy, providing security.)

- 5. Paragraph: technical factors can be effective in investment strategies for hydrogen energy (technological infrastructure of the company and the region, the importance of research and development)

- 6. Paragraph: financial factors can be effective in investment strategies for hydrogen energy (initial costs and variable costs in the hydrogen energy investment projects)

- 7. Paragraph: financial factors can be effective in investment strategies for hydrogen energy (sales volume, profitability, feasibility analysis, cash flow predictions)

 

Reviewer Comment 4: For Eqs. 13 and 14, the authors need to make it clear what criteria they used for determining the causality relationship between the factors.

Author Response 4: Based on the reviewer comments, the mistakes in the equations (13) and (14) are corrected. Additionally, the details of the causality analysis are also explained. The new forms are explained below.

In this context, average (D-E) value is calculated firstly and it is compared with the values in total relation matrix. For the values that are greater than average value, it is identified that the first criterion is influencing other one [59].

                                                                                        

 

 

Reviewer Comment 5: Some language in this manuscript is not precise. For example, for “Hydrogen has taken its place in these studies because it has many features unlike other renewable energy sources” in 2. Literature Review, if the authors make a statement like this, they should also mention what these features are. And hydrogen cannot be used in every field. There are indeed certain limitations to the application of hydrogen. Please make all statements in this manuscript as precise as you can.

Author Response 5: Based on the reviewer comments, all these kinds of expressions are removed from the study.

 

Reviewer Comment 6: The language used in this manuscript is not fluent, which makes it hard for the readers to follow the thoughts of the authors. Please revise the language carefully, if possible with the professional assistance in writing.

Author Response 6: According to the reviewer comments, we made significant improvements to the study. In this framework, we have almost rewritten “Introduction” and “Literature Review” parts. We have added some new studies in the literature part. Moreover, the expressions are explained in a detail. Hence, it is thought that with this new form, the literature review supports the methodological approach. Additionally, a native speaker made proofreading to the study. She corrected many different expressions in the study. Hence, it is thought that the level of English is improved significantly. Finally, we have also updated to the discussion and conclusion parts. In this regard, we detailed the limitations of the study.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have greatly implemented the article, modifying what was not clear in the previous version. I therefore believe that the article is now complete and ready to be published.

Reviewer 2 Report

Revision duly noted.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments to Authors:

Ref. No.: sustainability-809309

 

Title: Analysis of strategic directions in sustainable hydrogen investment decisions

 

Overview and general recommendation:

Compared with the previous version, this manuscript has been improved a lot. The authors have explained those factors that may influence hydrogen investment decisions in detail.  The authors also included more details in the expert interview of why the three experts are qualified for the interview.

 

Major comments:

1. If I understand correctly, the hydrogen investment strategies identified in this study are for the enterprise level, not for the state level. Then the authors should state this point clearly in the manuscript.
2. In Table 1, please includes borders for different columns or rows.
3. There are still some minor grammar errors in the manuscript. Before publication, please do a careful proof reading to correct that.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf