Application of Two-Step Entropy–TOPSIS Method and Complete Linkage Clustering for Water-Pumping Windmill Investment on Thailand Peninsula

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Application of Two-Step Entropy–TOPSIS Method and Complete Linkage Clustering for Water Pumping Windmill Investment on Thailand Peninsula" presents an important and interesting topic. The use of renewable energy sources such as wind energy is highly relevant, particularly for agricultural applications like water pumping in Thailand's peninsula regions. The paper attempts to address this by proposing a method that combines Entropy-TOPSIS and Complete Linkage Clustering to prioritize and cluster areas for the installation of windmill systems, based on both wind speed and agricultural potential.

While the topic is undoubtedly important, the manuscript falls short in several areas. Firstly, the paper omits a thorough literature review and fails to present relevant works related to recent advancements in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods. There is a noticeable lack of reference to recent contributions in the field, such as RANCOM, SPOTIS, ESP-COMET, or ICRA. These methods should be included to provide a stronger background and show where the proposed approach fits within the broader landscape of existing methodologies. Furthermore, while the Entropy-TOPSIS method is a reasonable choice, the paper does not justify the selection of vector normalization for formula (4). The authors could explore alternative normalization methods, such as min-max normalization or sum normalization, which might offer more insight or lead to different interpretations of the results.

Additionally, the novelty of the work is not sufficiently emphasized. The research gap should be better defined, as the current state of the manuscript does not clearly convey what makes this study unique compared to existing works. The contribution needs to be highlighted more explicitly, particularly in terms of how the integration of Entropy-TOPSIS and Complete Linkage Clustering advances the field or improves upon existing methods.

The authors could also consider expanding their analysis by incorporating other MCDA methods to ensure the robustness of the results. For instance, the use of tools like those available on platforms such as www.make-decision.it could enhance the comparison of alternative methods. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis could be broadened, and methods such as the COMSAM approach, which can be accessed through the pySens library, could provide more robust insights into how sensitive the results are to different criteria weights or assumptions. The inclusion of such analyses would significantly strengthen the paper by showing that the results are reliable under different conditions.

Another point worth discussing is whether the SITW method could be applied to improve the current methodology. This method might offer additional value or further refine the decision-making process, and its applicability should be explored by the authors. The manuscript would also benefit from a more in-depth discussion of the advantages and limitations of the proposed approach. While the clustering method used is practical, the authors should elaborate on the trade-offs involved, such as whether certain areas could have been prioritized differently based on different criteria or if the clustering method introduces any bias.

In conclusion, the manuscript touches on an interesting and pertinent subject but requires significant revisions to reach its full potential. The authors need to provide a more comprehensive review of related works, strengthen the discussion of their contributions and the novelty of their approach, and extend their analysis by considering additional MCDA methods and sensitivity checks. With these improvements, the paper would provide a more robust and well-rounded contribution to the field of sustainability and decision-making for renewable energy investments

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your assistance throughout the submission process of our manuscript. Your valuable comments and suggestions have been instrumental in guiding us to improve the quality of our work.

In response to your feedback, we have carefully revised our manuscript and addressed all your points in detail. Please find our response letter attached for your review.

Thank you once again for your insightful feedback and support. We greatly value your contributions to enhancing our study.

Sincerely,

Sakon Klongboonjit and Tossapol Kiatcharoenpol

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The development of renewable energy sources is a necessity for most countries, therefore the work is extremely relevant and in demand. However, a number of remarks can be noted:

1.                  The abstract is well written, but it is not entirely clear what the authors were aiming at in their study. It is worthwhile to formulate the task (or the problem to be solved) more clearly and explain why the results are so, i.e. why areas with large areas of agricultural land rather than average wind speeds are more suitable (perhaps in the form of an assumption, hypothesis or reasoned fact). This would allow the reader to understand the paper more accurately and generate additional interest in the study as a whole.

2.                  Section 2.1 focuses on the initial wind resource assessment. However, it is not clear how the initial dataset was obtained. If it is your own research, please specify this in more detail; if it is open source data, this should also be explicitly stated.

3.                  Sections 2.2-2.4 describe in great detail the steps taken by the authors to perform all the necessary procedures and calculate the criteria sought. It may be worth adding a mention of the means by which the analysis was performed (i.e., whether the calculations were performed with the help of software or were analytical, etc.). This will allow readers to more clearly assess the possibility of using the presented methodology for their own research.

4.                  Also, clarification is needed on the importance of Table 11, which presents the average monthly wind speeds for the 28 selected areas and then the annual averages. Should it be limited to the total values, i.e. average wind speeds, so that such an extensive and not very informative table is not needed?

5.                  Finally, I would like to understand if there are any limitations to using this approach? Are there any special data requirements or is this approach quite universal? It may be worth adding information on the prospects and feasibility of using this approach to prioritize areas when considering other types of renewable energy.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your valuable comments and suggestions have been immensely helpful in improving the quality and clarity of our work.

In response, we have carefully revised our manuscript to address your feedback. For your convenience, we have also provided a detailed response letter, which is attached to this submission.

Thank you once again for your insightful feedback and guidance. We are grateful for your contributions to enhancing our study.

Sincerely,

Sakon Klongboonjit and Tossapol Kiatcharoenpol 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article discusses the application of a two-step Entropy-TOPSIS method combined with Complete Linkage Clustering to prioritize and cluster areas for the investment in water pumping windmills on the Thailand Peninsula. However, some descriptions are not clear. I kindly request that the authors revise these parts to enhance the overall clarity and effectiveness of the document.

1. The article should incorporate a more comprehensive literature review in the introduction to underscore the novelty and significance of the study. By comparing the proposed method with existing approaches and highlighting the research gaps addressed in this study, the article can better position its contribution to the field.

2. Although the document mentions that agricultural areas hold greater significance than monthly wind speeds and provides a specific weight value, it would be beneficial to further explain the rationale behind this weight allocation and how this weighting affects the final prioritization. This additional detail will help readers better understand the logic and decision-making process underlying the analysis.

3. Please standardize the format of the figures and tables in the article, and provide a more detailed explanation of the content.

4. For the conclusion section, it should concisely summarize the main findings, contributions, and practical applications of the study. Additionally, it should propose future research directions and recommendations.

5.  In this paper, the authors focus on the analysis of monthly wind speed and agricultural data, introduce a two-step entropy-topsis combined with a complete correlation method to prioritize and cluster wind speed in the southern west coast of Thailand, in order to improve Thai agricultural productivity, you can compare and analyze different methods to show your advantages. Refer to the following article:

[a] IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 10751-10762, 2023

[b] IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1106-1116, Jan. 2024

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your valuable comments and suggestions have been instrumental in helping us improve the quality and clarity of our work.

In response to your feedback, we have carefully revised our manuscript and prepared a detailed response letter, which is attached for your review.

Thank you once again for your insightful input and guidance throughout this process. We are truly grateful for your contributions.

Sincerely,

Sakon Klongboonjit and Tossapol Kiatcharoenpol

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is improved and I suggest accepting after minor revision. However, please see on the references, where for many European scientists the surnames are misplases with first names, e.g., 

Jiri M. should be Mazurek, J.

The same for Andrii, Bartłomiej and so on. These are first names 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer and Section Managing Editor,

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your valuable comments and suggestions have been immensely helpful in improving the quality and clarity of our work.

In response, we have carefully revised our manuscript to address your feedback. For your convenience, we have also provided a detailed response letter, which is attached to this submission.

Thank you once again for your insightful feedback and guidance. We are grateful for your contributions to enhancing our study.

Sincerely,

Sakon Klongboonjit and Tossapol Kiatcharoenpol 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx