Electric Vehicle Solar Charging Station Siting Study Based on GIS and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making: A Case Study of China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The following are my comments:
1) Provide a thorough validation of the proposed methodology by comparing the results obtained using the GIS-based fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy MULTIMOORA methods with real-world data. This validation could involve collecting data from existing PVCS sites and evaluating the accuracy and effectiveness of the methodology in predicting suitable locations.
2) Sensitivity Analysis: Perform a sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the proposed methodology. Vary the weights assigned to different evaluation criteria and assess how the rankings and selected sites change. This analysis will help evaluate the sensitivity of the model to different input parameters and provide insights into the reliability of the results.
3) Consider Additional Evaluation Criteria: Explore the possibility of incorporating additional evaluation criteria into the site selection index system. Consider factors such as land availability, accessibility to major roads, proximity to power grid connections, and potential for future expansion. Including these criteria can enhance the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the site selection process.
4) Improve Explanation of Fuzzy DEMATEL and MULTIMOORA: Provide a more detailed explanation of the fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy MULTIMOORA methods used in the study. Describe the underlying principles, equations, and calculations involved. Additionally, provide clear examples or illustrations to help readers understand how these methods were applied to the data and how the results were interpreted.
5) Expand Discussion on Practical Implications: In the conclusion section, expand the discussion on the practical implications of the research findings. Discuss how the proposed methodology can be applied by stakeholders involved in the planning and development of PVCS in China or other regions. Highlight the potential benefits in terms of sustainable energy generation, reduced carbon emissions, and improved charging infrastructure for NEVs.
Minor corrections are required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Location selection of NEV Charging Station of the nearest city was evaluated. Multi-Criteria Decision-making models Fuzzy MULTIMOORA and GIS were used to identify the location suitability for installation of charging station for the NWV. The study is innovative but needs major revisions as recommended below :
1) Poor review of the literature. Use only the latest (2022 and 2023)
2) Why Fuzzy DEMATEL was utilized for criteria weight determination?
3) Why Fuzzy MULTI MOORA is used? What are the advantages of the utilization of Fuzzy MULTIMOORA?
4) Were any verification/validation of the results from the MCDM method carried out ?
5) Four Criteria are used. B1,B2,B3 and B4. Why Political Interference was not used? What is the advantage of not using Political Interference as a criterion?
6) Novelty, Limitation, and Future Scope not found in the paper.
7) "The initial evaluation matrix was obtained according to relevant literature and reported information,"..How many? But such a type of evaluation is changeable with change in the expert. How have you compensated these lacunae?
8) Name the axis of the graph in Fig.8.
9) What is the justification for using an alternative ranking? What are the benefits?
10) How sites(A1 to A8) are selected?
Need to be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Current similarity index is at 20%, not a big deal but further reduce the percentage would be highly encouraged.
2. In this article, used of abbreviation "NEV" could be very confusing, as "NEV" could refer to battery EV, hydrogen fuel cell or other types of "new energy" vehicles. Since this paper is exploring about solar charging station for EVs which mean that the term "EV" would be more suitable then "NEV".
3. Abstract needs improvement, some expected outcomes need to be elaborated here.
4. The formula for equation (1) in line 202 is wrong. please check!
5. The weightage and considerations of factors used in Table 2 is arguable. Example: (i) Far from water resources may not be a good idea as water source like river, lake could be the factor of attractions. Of course, natural disaster factors need to be considered here. (ii) Why not consider the accessibility to the power grid network? even though this is PV CS, but if the grid is available, that would be an extra credit to promote other facilities that required line power.
6. page 18 is empty.
7. The outcomes of the current research method as compared to TOPSIS, VIKOR and TODIM did not shows significant improvement. Author may needs to provide further justification to explain the advantages of the current approaches.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The study has been scientifically carried out and the manuscript is well written. It can be accepted for publication after addressing the below mentioned issues
1) The novelty of the work is not highlighted in the introduction
2) The abbreviations are not explained in the first instance of use
3) Kindly provide reference for Fig. 1
4) In section 4.3, the authors must elaborate on the method of evaluating the relationship between indicators
5) In Fig. 4 the province is not highlighted on the map of China, instead the red square is placed somewhere else.
5) The discussion in section 5 is very weak. How did the authors make the comparison. Kindly elaborate.
7) Page numbers are wrong and there is an empty page
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper can be accepted in the present form.
Reviewer 3 Report
Nothing is perfect but authors have put enough effort to response to reviewers comments. I am satisfied with the amendment done by the author(s).
