Factors to Promote Construction of Mega-Scale Solar Power Generation Facilities from the Viewpoint of Local Residents in Vietnam

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research presents an analysis of certain factors using interviews conducted with residents of nearby regions; it builds upon a previous study (reference [24] from 2016) and applies its methodology to a different population, but its methodology may be outdated compared to new trends in this field.

Based on the review, I present the following suggestions and comments:

1. It is stated that the energy price is $0.935/kWh; please specify the currency unit to avoid confusion.
2. According to Table 1, there were 123 respondents; however, in the subsequent tables, the total varies and is different from 123. What occurred in different cases?
3. Factors from the previous study [24] are used, but no prior analysis is presented for the identification and selection of these factors. It is assumed that the factors used in the previous work will be the same for this scenario. While it is possible that these factors might be the same, an initial verification should be conducted.
4. The results only indicate the distribution of responses for each factor. No work is done to compare, weigh, or prioritize them, resulting in a reductionist perspective. Therefore, it is recommended to present the survey used (as an appendix or with a link provided) and improve the document by specifying the methodology used to identify these factors.
5. For aesthetic purposes, it is suggested that comments not be placed in the table titles. It is preferable to place them at the bottom of the table or include them in the body of the document to avoid redundancy of the same text.
6. In the table titles, "predicted values" are mentioned; however, I was unable to identify where these values are presented. The first time they are mentioned is in Table 4. It is necessary to explain where these “predicted values” come from and what they are.
7. Specify which statistical method is being referenced regarding the p-values.
8. When comparing the study used as a basis, it is identified that no analysis of the socioeconomic variables (Table 1 from reference [24]) is conducted. Why did this analysis not perform in this study?
9. It is recommended to include a section that presents strategies, recommendations, and lessons learned to provide a sustainable solution to these factors.
10. The conclusions are too general and do not convey the significance of the work.

The paper presents descriptive statistics of the surveys conducted. Nowadays, multicriteria decision methods like AHP are used for these scenarios. The research cited in reference [24] was published in 2016, and therefore its methodology may be outdated compared to new trends in this field. It is advisable to adjust the analysis and presentation of the results obtained.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Enhance Logical Coherence:

The section "3.1.3. Sentiment Regarding the Operation of the Target Facility" could be made more specific, such as "Perceived Sentiments Toward Facility Operation," to better reflect local residents' attitudes and feelings.

A brief introductory section could be added before "3.2. Factors Influencing Local Residents’ Receptivity to the Construction of MEGA-SPGs" to outline the main aspects of the interview analysis and the logical flow, helping readers better understand the subsequent sections.

Logical Hierarchy Structure: The sub-sections under "3.2" (such as "3.2.1. Awareness," "3.2.2. Procedural Justice") constitute the main factors influencing local residents' receptivity. It is recommended to provide a brief definition and background at the beginning of each sub-section to explain why these factors are important and their relationship with MEGA-SPG construction.

2. Consider Adding Discussion and Analysis Sections:

The current structure lacks a dedicated discussion and comparison section for the findings. Consider adding a section, such as "Discussion," specifically to discuss the relationships between influencing factors and compare the results with previous studies.

After "3.2.5. Environmental Impacts," consider adding a concluding sub-section that discusses the trade-offs and overall impact of each influencing factor, which would enhance the systematic nature of the paper and support the study's conclusions.

3. Detailed Description of Methods:

The section "2.3. Methods of Analyzing Interview Results" could be further elaborated to include specific details on data analysis methods (e.g., qualitative coding, content analysis) and the use of software tools, making the methodology more transparent and reproducible.

4. Social and Policy Recommendations Section

Consider adding a "Policy Implications" or "Recommendations" section at the end of the paper to provide specific suggestions based on the findings, which would help promote MEGA-SPG construction and increase local residents' acceptance.

These suggestions aim to make the structure clearer, strengthen the logical flow, and enhance the readability of the study as well as its practical value for policymaking. I hope these suggestions are helpful to you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Ø  The topic of community acceptance of renewable energy projects is highly relevant, especially in the context of Vietnam's growing focus on solar energy. This study could contribute significantly to the success of future solar power projects.

Ø  The use of qualitative interviews with a diverse group of residents from varying distances from the facility provides insights into community perspectives.

Ø  While the study focuses on a specific geographical region, a broader review of existing literature on community acceptance of renewable energy projects globally and in Southeast Asia would help contextualize the findings. This could also help establish how the results align or contrast with previous studies.

Ø  More detail on the analysis of interview data is needed. How were the interview responses categorized, and what methods were used to analyze the data? Providing more insight into the analytical process would help readers better understand the robustness of the conclusions.

 

Ø  The manuscript would benefit from a more explicit discussion of the study's limitations. For example, were there any potential biases in the selection of interviewees or in the responses collected? How might these affect the generalizability of the findings?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor revision is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The document was improved according to the indications given in the first version. It has changed a lot and the scientific novelty can be observed more clearly.

I have no comment on the investigation.