Small Hydroelectric Energy and Spatial Planning: A Methodology Introducing the Concept of Territorial Carrying Capacity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an important topic to discuss for sustainable development. This paper provides valuable introduction information about the practice and regulations regarding small hydroelectric energy and spatial planning in Greece. As mentioned in the article, more efforts should be put into studying carrying capacity at the level of a wider territory or the functional area of a catchment. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for reviewing our paper and providing your constructive comments and valuable assessment of the points that can and/or must be improved. Taking your comments and assessment into consideration as well as the comments and assessment of all three reviewers we proceeded to an extensive revision which gave us the opportunity to clarify all issues raised and to improve our paper considerably. Our responses to your comments is as follows:

It is an important topic to discuss for sustainable development. This paper provides valuable introduction information about the practice and regulations regarding small hydroelectric energy and spatial planning in Greece. As mentioned in the article, more efforts should be put into studying carrying capacity at the level of a wider territory or the functional area of a catchment. 

Thank you very much for your positive comment and for appreciating the need to study carrying capacity at the level of a wider territory. We believe that in the revised version and with the new additions we made we have highlighted further this need.

Reviewer 2 Report

The submission “Small Hydroelectric Energy and Spatial Planning: Reconsidering the concept of carrying capacity as a strategic planning tool. I consider that the novelty of this research is limited. The current trend of Energy and Spatial Planning goes beyond a simple process of reconsidering the concept of carrying capacity as a strategic planning tool. Also, the novelty of your paper as given below is unclear. Therefore,  in the following, I enlist some issues that need to be incorporated by the authors:

 

·         Title should be rephrased.

·         Why does the paper select this method. Is this the only method that can be used for this analysis? The introduction should be highly discussed on this method’s selection.

·         Avoid pronouns in the manuscript like “We” etc.

·         Quality of figures is poor.

 

·         What are the limitations of this paper? State limitation in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2 Thank you very much for reviewing our paper and providing your constructive comments and valuable assessment of the points that can and/or must be improved. Taking your comments and assessment into consideration as well as the comments and assessment of all three reviewers we proceeded to an extensive revision which gave us the opportunity clarify all issues raised and to improve our paper considerably. Our responses to each of the issues that you suggest to be incorporated are as follows:

The submission “Small Hydroelectric Energy and Spatial Planning: Reconsidering the concept of carrying capacity as a strategic planning tool. I consider that the novelty of this research is limited. The current trend of Energy and Spatial Planning goes beyond a simple process of reconsidering the concept of carrying capacity as a strategic planning tool. Also, the novelty of your paper as given below is unclear.

Thank you very much for this comment. We do appreciate your concerns and we hope that the extensive revisions we made highlight better the novelty of our paper.

• Title should be rephrased

Thank you for this suggestion. We rephrased our title to make it simpler and more precise.

• Why does the paper select this method. Is this the only method that can be used for this analysis? The introduction should be highly discussed on this method’s selection.

Thank you very much for this comment. In section 2 we added a sub-section 2.3 regarding the SHPS capacity assessment in the relevant literature and discuss where do these approaches focus on and why an approach such as the one we propose is necessary for spatial planning.

• Avoid pronouns in the manuscript like “We” etc.

We have replaced all the pronouns.

• Quality of figures is poor.

We have replaced all figures with better quality ones.

• What are the limitations of this paper? State limitation in the conclusion section.

Thank you very much for this comment. In the conclusions we added the limitations of the proposed methods.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Based on spatial analysis and the concept of carrying capacity, this paper carries out the small hydropower site selection planning. In general, the paper has a certain practical significance, and the English writing can be understood. However, a major revision is still needed before final acceptance. The main suggestions are as follows:

1) The writing of the paper is very long, and many contents unrelated to the topic of the paper do not need to be reserved. For example, this paper focuses on the spatial analysis for small hydropower site selection, but the paper mentions the site selection of wind power plants, photovoltaic power plants, etc. Another example is the second section on the potential impact of small hydropower and the advantages and disadvantages of the SPF-RES approach, and whether it can be simplified to avoid diluting the topic.

2) In the section of literature review, other research methods related to small hydropower site selection should be supplemented, such as what data were used, what factors were considered (such as terrain, land use, ecological protection area, geological conditions, etc.), and what conclusions were reached.

3) The authors use the concept of "carrying capacity", but it is not clear what "carrying capacity" is in this paper. Carrying capacity should be a comprehensive concept, should include socio-economic, ecological environment, technical status and other factors, need to consider terrain, land use, ecological protection areas, ecological flow, geological conditions and other conditions.

4) The text of the paper is too much, which makes it difficult for readers to catch the key points. It is suggested to add a large number of figures and tables to simplify the content. For example: 1) Whether the SPF-RES approach and the territorial density-based and catchment-based methods proposed in this paper can be presented in the form of technical roadmap. 2) Whether the advantages and disadvantages, and the similarities and differences of the SPF-RES approach, the territorial density-based and the catchment-based methods proposed in this paper, as well as the methods in other papers can be listed for comparison in a table. 3) The presentation of results is relatively simple, and only the number of plants/square kilometers in different scenarios are given. Can other results be further supplemented, such as installed capacity/square kilometers?

5) The structure of the paper can also be optimized. For example, after the result section, a comparison section can be further supplemented. On the one hand, the SPF-RES approach can be compared with the two methods proposed in this paper, and on the other hand, the small hydropower site selection methods in other papers can be compared, so as to reach the main conclusions of this paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

Thank you very much for reviewing our paper and providing your constructive comments and valuable assessment of the points that can and/or must be improved. Taking your comments and assessment into consideration as well as the comments and assessment of all three reviewers we proceeded to an extensive revision which gave us the opportunity to clarify all issues raised and to improve our paper considerably. Our responses to your suggestions are as follows:

Based on spatial analysis and the concept of carrying capacity, this paper carries out the small hydropower site selection planning. In general, the paper has a certain practical significance, and the English writing can be understood. However, a major revision is still needed before final acceptance.

Thank you very much for this comment. We do appreciate your positive comment on the practical significance of the paper as well as your suggestions for a major revision.

1) The writing of the paper is very long, and many contents unrelated to the topic of the paper do not need to be reserved. For example, this paper focuses on the spatial analysis for small hydropower site selection, but the paper mentions the site selection of wind power plants, photovoltaic power plants, etc. Another example is the second section on the potential impact of small hydropower and the advantages and disadvantages of the SPF-RES approach, and whether it can be simplified to avoid diluting the topic.

Thank you very much for this suggestion. In the introduction as well as in other sections we deleted most of the mentions regarding site selection of wind power plants, photovoltaic power plants, etc. Also we reduced considerably the second section on the potential impacts of small hydropower and the advantages and disadvantages of the SPF-RES approach. We believe that with these changes we have avoided problems of diluting our topic.

2) In the section of literature review, other research methods related to small hydropower site selection should be supplemented, such as what data were used, what factors were considered (such as terrain, land use, ecological protection area, geological conditions, etc.), and what conclusions were reached.

Thank you very much for this suggestion. In section 2 we added a sub-section 2.3 regarding  the SHPS capacity assessment in the relevant literature and discuss where do these approaches focus on and why an approach such as the one we propose is necessary for spatial planning. We thought that it is better to add this discussion in Section 2 and not in the Introduction so as this section to stand as an overall conceptual framework that leads better to our proposed methodological approach.

3) The authors use the concept of "carrying capacity", but it is not clear what "carrying capacity" is in this paper. Carrying capacity should be a comprehensive concept, should include socio-economic, ecological environment, technical status and other factors, need to consider terrain, land use, ecological protection areas, ecological flow, geological conditions and other conditions.

Thank you for very much for this comment. In the Introduction (lines 106-08) we added a phrase to clarify that in our paper the concept of carrying capacity refers to the availability of the resource, i.e. the water potential, combined with water policy priorities which focus on the pursuit of their good ecological status.

4) The text of the paper is too much, which makes it difficult for readers to catch the key points. It is suggested to add a large number of figures and tables to simplify the content. For example: 1) Whether the SPF-RES approach and the territorial density-based and catchment-based methods proposed in this paper can be presented in the form of technical roadmap. 2) Whether the advantages and disadvantages, and the similarities and differences of the SPF-RES approach, the territorial density-based and the catchment-based methods proposed in this paper, as well as the methods in other papers can be listed for comparison in a table. 3) The presentation of results is relatively simple, and only the number of plants/square kilometers in different scenarios are given. Can other results be further supplemented, such as installed capacity/square kilometers?

We reduced parts of the paper so as to highlight better our key points. We also added figures 1 and 2 as conceptual flowcharts of the two methods. In the results section we added Table 1 (as proposed in your next comment) where we provide all key features of our two methods and the SPF-RES approach including the advantages and disadvantages. Regarding your third point our approach does not deal with the installed capacity. Although this is a key issue for energy policy spatial planning is mainly concerned with the integrity of the waterbody and this is why the number of plants/square kilometers is important.

5) The structure of the paper can also be optimized. For example, after the result section, a comparison section can be further supplemented. On the one hand, the SPF-RES approach can be compared with the two methods proposed in this paper, and on the other hand, the small hydropower site selection methods in other papers can be compared, so as to reach the main conclusions of this paper.

Thank you very much for this comment. In the results section (Section 3) we added a sub-section 3.3. on a  comparison of the key features of the methodological approaches. As mentioned above there we added Table 1 where we provide all key features of the methods. We didn’t find it necessary to provide a comparison with methods suggested in the literature as they focus on providing criteria for the best siting of SHPSprojects in the watershed level and not at a national or regional scale. We thought that it is better to discuss briefly these methods and the main differences with our aproach in section 2.3.   

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an important topic to discuss for sustainable development. This paper provides useful introduction information about the practice and regulation regarding small hydroelectric energy and spatial planning in Greece. We expect more efforts to be put on the study of carrying capacity at the level of a wider territory or the functional area of a catchment, as mentioned in the paper.I

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

In the first round of your review we regarded your general comment as a positive one as it was not followed by any other detailed comment so that for us to address the possible specific points you raise. Yet in our revision we took into consideration your evaluation parameters that the journal normally asks to be completed by the reviewers (yes/can be improved/must be improved). In the second round you practically provided again the same general comment as the one in the first round. As this may be due to the fact that we have not explained in our answer to you the changes that were made in the revised manuscript, here we describe in brief the main revisions we made based on the specific comments of the other two reviewers as well as on how you evaluated the evaluation parameters that the journal normally asks to be completed by the reviewers (yes/can be improved/must be improved):

• We made a number of changes so as to fucus better on the main objective of the paper and avoid problems of diluting our topic to highlight better our key points. So, in the introduction as well as in other sections we deleted most of the mentions regarding site selection of wind power plants, photovoltaic power plants, etc.
• Also, we reduced considerably the second section on the potential impacts of small hydropower and the advantages and disadvantages of the SPF-RES approach. Instead in section 2 we added a sub-section 2.3 regarding the SHPS capacity assessment in the relevant literature and discuss where do these approaches focus on and why an approach such as the one we propose is necessary for spatial planning. We thought that it is better to add this discussion in Section 2 and not in the Introduction so as this section to stand as an overall conceptual framework that leads better to our proposed methodological approach.
• In the Introduction we made a brief addition so as to clarify that in our paper the concept of carrying capacity refers to the availability of the resource, i.e. the water potential, combined with water policy priorities which focus on the pursuit of their good ecological status.
• In the methodology we added figures 1 and 2 as conceptual flowcharts of the two proposed methods. In the results section (Section 3) we added a sub-section 3.3. on a comparison of the key features of the methodological approaches. There we added Table 1 where we provide all key features of the methods including the advantages and disadvantages.
• We rephrased our title to make is simpler and more precise.
• In the conclusions we added the limitations of the proposed methods.

We beleive that with these changes we had highlighted further the objective of our study, i.e. to extend the concept of carrying capacity in the siting of SHPS installations from a strictly linear level to a wider territorial level which is more crucial for spatial planning.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have incorporated all the comments, however, some grammatical errors should be corrected before acceptance.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you very much for reviewing our paper and providing your positive response that we have incorporated all your comments and for suggesting its acceptance after the corrections of the grammatical errors. In this new version of our manuscript we have corrected our grammatical errors. We are grateful once again for your constructive comments and valuable suggestions in the first round of this review that gave us the opportunity to improve our paper considerably.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper can be accpeted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

Thank you very much for reviewing our paper and providing your positive response that our paper can be accepted. In this new version of our manuscript we have also corrected our grammatical errors. We are grateful for your constructive comments and valuable suggestions in the first round of this review that gave us the opportunity to improve our paper.