Balancing Solar Potential and Environmental Risk: A GIS-Based Site-Selection Approach for Concentrated Solar Power in Tibet

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research topic is very scientifically important. The research itself has an evident scientific contribution. Some chapters in the research should be presented more specifically by the authors. The continuation of the review provides observations on the manuscript, as well as recommendations for changes and additions:

1. The title is well formulated. The title corresponds to the description of the research.
2. The keywords are well formulated.
3. The abstract is clear.
4. Do not write the manuscript with personal pronouns (we…..). The manuscript should be written in the third person and in the past tense.
5. The quality of the figures and tables is good.
6. Avoid grouping a large number of citations. See: [3-17].
7. All symbols in the equations should be explained.
8. Some of the equations should be cited from the source from which they were taken.
9. All units in the manuscript are well labeled.
10. Line 81: At the beginning of the chapter Methodology, it should be emphasized which scientific methods, techniques, tools, etc., are used in the research.
11. The methodology of the work should be expanded, and the importance of the MCDM method should be explained.
12. The following statements should be given: “Most existing Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods can only be used to rank readily available choices. After the first ranking has been completed, some of the options are discarded, and others may arise, then it will be necessary to start the ranking over again.” (Consult and add the following research: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51494-4_19). “For utilizing MCDM methods to prioritize options, three key factors significantly influencing the ranking are: the MCDM method, the data normalization approach, and the method employed to determine weights for criteria.” (Consult and add the following research: https://doi.org/10.18485/aeletters.2023.8.3.5)
13. Lines 160-164: Were the insolation data measured or taken from another source? If they were measured, describe the methodology, and if they were taken, cite the source.
14. In section 3.1. Where the solar insolation data are given, the number of sunny days per year should be stated.
15. The results are clear and well explained.
16. In the conclusion, it should be stated which scientific research was the justification and which social research was the justification.
17. The reference should be expanded by introducing new sources.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents a hybrid GIS-based Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) framework, incorporating Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Entropy Weight Method (EWM), and the VIKOR ranking method, tailored for the selection of Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) sites in Tibet. It proposes a region-specific evaluation model by integrating localized climatic indicators (average and maximum wind speed, snow depth) often overlooked in conventional models. The authors validate their model through a comprehensive case study and sensitivity analysis.

Below are some suggestions for improving the manuscript

• The manuscript addresses an underexplored challenge in renewable energy planning: CSP site selection in high-altitude, environmentally extreme regions. But, considere comparar su modelo con enfoques MCDM más tradicionales como TOPSIS o SAW para reforzar su superioridad.

• Related to the introduction, in the bibliographic review, the contribution of the research is not clear and more references should be included to clarify the contribution. The authors must make an effort to create a theoretical framework to observe the interest of the article. Include references for AHP methods or GIS like:

  Villacreses, G., Jijón, D., Nicolalde, J. F., Martínez-Gómez, J., & Betancourt, F. (2022). Multicriteria Decision Analysis of Suitable Location for Wind and Photovoltaic Power Plants on the Galápagos Islands. Energies, 16(1), 29.

• Include more international case studies or literature on CSP in similarly extreme climates (e.g., Andes, Atacama, Sahara).

• Further clarify how expert participants for AHP were selected—what qualifies them as “domain experts”?

• Discuss potential biases in expert input and any measures taken to mitigate them.

• Table formatting can be improved for readability (e.g., Tables 4–7).

• Clarify whether exclusion thresholds (e.g., max snow depth) are based on empirical engineering constraints or arbitrary cutoffs.

• The “Future Work” section could benefit from more specificity on how integration with grid planning would be operationalized.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences, especially in the introduction and conclusion, are overly long and could be streamlined.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a rigorous and locally relevant approach to selecting CSP sites in complex environments like Tibet, combining GIS, AHP, and EWM. The effort is substantial and reflects a high level of technical work.

Several areas, however, could be improved:

- The manuscript has inconsistent indentation in several sections, which should be standardized for clarity.

- The heavy use of indicators and combined weighting methods (AHP-EWM) makes the paper difficult to follow for readers unfamiliar with these tools. A clearer introduction or visual explanation would help.

- The description of expert judgment (Section 3, pg. 6) lacks detail. Without explaining how experts were guided or consistency ensured, the process feels arbitrary.

- In Fig. 5, treating altitude as only moderately important seems questionable, especially given the serious risks of hypobaric hypoxia above 4500m.

- A final map showing optimal regions selected by both AHP and EWM would make the results more accessible and visually compelling.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It could be improved a bit, for better comprehension.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the requested changes. I propose that the paper be published.

Author Response

Thank you for your recommendation and confirmation . We appreciate your thorough evaluation and constructive feedback throughout the review process. According to the requirements of academic editing, the title in the manuscript has been modified and highlighted in green, and marked in red font.