Towards Clean Energy Transition: An Exploratory Case Study from Rural Egypt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates the case of rural energy transition in Egypt, using different analysis and on-site methods, as well as statistical analysis, selecting 339 villages in the northern delta region of Egypt. However, the manuscript still has the following issues:

The description of the research background in the abstract is very detailed, but it also takes up a lot of space and should be appropriately streamlined. The problem to be solved in the manuscript is not clear. In this section, it is necessary to clarify the problem that the manuscript needs to solve and briefly explain the research results or viewpoints obtained. For example, what is the significant correlation?

The second paragraph mentions renewable energy and clean energy. Can you provide examples of the clean energy sources related to this manuscript that can be used in rural Egypt?

The introduction should summarize some research methods related to this manuscript. Are there any other research methods?

In the section on methods and materials, the main focus is on methodology. Can it be changed to methodology?

The result first describes a case, can it be clearer?

Can the fourth part be simply referred to as discussion?

The discussion section should also provide a brief explanation of the effectiveness of the methods used in this manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer1, 
Thank you very much for your valuable review and feedback. Kindly find below our response to your seven
comments as follows: 

Comment 1: The description of the research background in the abstract is very detailed, but it also takes up a lot of space and should be appropriately streamlined. The problem to be solved in the manuscript is not clear. In this section, it is necessary to clarify the problem that the manuscript needs to solve and briefly explain the research results or viewpoints obtained. For example, what is the significant correlation?

Reply 1: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions.

The abstract has been entirely rewritten and streamlined (233 words instead of 350), the research background has been reduced and better presented, the problem to be solved has been better described, and the method and results have been better described. A brief explanation of all obtained results is provided (including the significant correlation aspects), linking the results of rooftop solar panels to the current regulations and the policy implications.

The problem to be solved in the manuscript is more elaborated: the response to it in the discussion and conclusion sections has been emphasized, presenting practical and political implications.

Comment 2: The second paragraph mentions renewable energy and clean energy. Can you provide examples of the clean energy sources related to this manuscript that can be used in rural Egypt?

Reply 2: Thank you so much for your feedback. A new paragraph was added to reflect on the horizon of renewable energy for the energy transition in Egypt through more analysis of already cited references and a new reference discussing the issue in Egypt, concluding that solar energy  PV is the most used one.  

Consequently, more elaboration on the PV under the current regulatory framework has been presented in the discussion (Section 4.2). Additionally, in conclusion, the practical implications provided (Section 5), and policy implications (Section 5.1) have been provided

Comment 3: The introduction should summarize some research methods related to this manuscript. Are there any other research methods?

Reply 3: We thank you for the chance to elaborate and highlight the attributes needed to improve the manuscript.
The introduction summarized the method used in the literature that is similar to our study. Thus, we extracted Section 1.1.2. showing that the methods used in our manuscript are like similar studies.

Consequently,  the data collection and detailed steps have been more elaborated under Section 3.2.2 Questionnaire and Data Collection and Section 3.2.3 Statistical Analysis.  Additionally, all supplementary materials used in the manuscript have been referred to in the citation: the questionnaire itself, the communication with locals, and the Autocad map of the village. Moreover, a clear summary of the method has been stated in the discussion section.

Comment 4: In the section on methods and materials, the main focus is on methodology. Can it be changed to methodology?

Reply 4: Thank you so much for your suggestion. The title of Section 2 has been changed to Methodology.

Comment 5: The result first describes a case, can it be clearer?

Reply 5: Thank you for your feedback, which enhanced the study's depth.

The results section has been entirely revised,  Section 3.1.1 has been revised and better described by rearranging the paragraphs to start from the top, policy levels (GHG and energy targets in line with global), to down, showing the share of electricity consumption and distribution in buildings and the share of national GHG. Some of the irrelevant numerical values have been removed (e.g., the share of other energy sources and the sector’s energy consumption) to better introduce our intervention. Consequently, a clear statement in the hypothesis (Section 1.4) shows how the national targets could be addressed. And the recommendation to policies.

Comment 6: Can the fourth part be simply referred to as discussion?

Reply 6: Thank you so much for your suggestion. The title of Section 4 has been changed to Discussion.

Comment 7: The discussion section should also provide a brief explanation of the effectiveness of the methods used in this manuscript.

Reply 7: We appreciate your valuable feedback and highlight the attributes needed to improve the manuscript by better describing the discussion.
The discussion section has been entirely developed. The method used has been clearly added. This came after more elaboration in the Methodology and Results section, such as describing why the specific statistical model and software used are beneficial and effectively indicate the correlation.

Additionally, the entire manuscript has been revised and enhanced. The results and method have been better described, and the results have been enhanced. The juxtaposition of the obtained results with the literature has been stated and critically analyzed; new figures were added to enhance the readability. 


Thank you very much for your time and support.
Best regards, 
Authors
 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper primarily explores the potential of renewable energy in rural Egypt by quantifying the correlation between the rural built environment and energy consumption in buildings, defining the current state of electricity consumption in rural Egypt and its role in related greenhouse gas emissions. Before the article is published, some minor issues need to be addressed.

 

The following are suggestions for revisions aimed at improving the clarity, accuracy, and readability of the document:

1. Although the current abstract includes the background and purpose of the research, it could more clearly state the main findings of the study and their implications for policy.

2. It is recommended to provide more specific details regarding data collection and analysis. For example, describe the criteria for sample selection, the process of questionnaire design, and the rationale for the choice of specific software and methods used in statistical analysis.

3. It is suggested to better label the results in the revised version of the paper to enhance readability and information flow, making it easier for reviewers to understand. Additionally, comparing the findings with existing research results would allow for a deeper analysis of the significance of the study's outcomes.

4. If the authors create a table at the end of the paper listing all abbreviations in alphabetical order, it may help readers understand the content more easily.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your insightful review and feedback. Below, you’ll find our responses to your four comments:

Comment 1: Although the current abstract includes the background and purpose of the research, it could more clearly state the main findings of the study and their implications for policy.

Reply 1: The abstract is entirely re-wrote and shortened, and the main obtained findings have been briefly justified as well as linking the results with policy, and a clear statement has been added: “Under current regulations, solar panels on the rooftops of rural dwellings generate electricity significantly but are absolutely not profitable. Eventually, insights for policymakers to inform energy transition policies and rural areas regeneration's national initiatives were provided.”

Comment 2: It is recommended to provide more specific details regarding data collection and analysis. For example, describe the criteria for sample selection, the process of questionnaire design, and the rationale for the choice of specific software and methods used in statistical analysis.

Reply 2: We appreciate the opportunity to further clarify and emphasize the manuscript's qualities regarding data collection and analysis. The data collection has been more elaborated; namely,

• To describe the sample of selection and the process of the questionnaire:
• Section 3.1.3: A paragraph has been added to elaborate on data collection and spatial analysis conducted as an external, including the only open-source AutoCAD map for the village.
• Section 3.2: Criteria and rationale for selecting the locals interviewed have been added.
• Section 3.2.2, Questionnaire Design: The rationale for forming the questionnaire has been clearly stated and linked with the objective, and also in line with the sections characterized by the case study (the macro- and micro-context) that already introduce buildings and socio-economic factors.
• Moreover, at the end of Section 3.2.2, Questionnaire Design, a statement has been added to the tool host the questionnaire (Google Forms), an external link referring to the original questionnaire has been added, and finally, an external link added, showing an example for the distribution of questionnaires to one of three Facebook groups (in May 2021, as mentioned in the first line in section 3.2)
• To choice of specific software and methods used in statistical analysis, Section 3.2.3 has been totally strengthened, as follows :
•  The data types and scale measurements used in the statistical analysis have been emphasized, showing examples of the type of data extracted from the questionnaire. Based on that, the two statistical models used have been clearly justified in accordance with the study's data types and objectives.
• Also, the software used has been better described; additionally, we supported why the software is beneficial to conduct the analysis by citing research used the tool to conduct a similar analysis to our study. Besides, the authors have adequate awareness of this software
• Finally, all the data used in the manuscript has been cited in the text (online questionnaire, master layout in AutoCAD format, and communication with local community at Facebook Group), reference [70-73], also more elaboration on the data collection has been provided.
  
  

Comment 3: It is suggested to better label the results in the revised version of the paper to enhance readability and information flow, making it easier for reviewers to understand. Additionally, comparing the findings with existing research results would allow for a deeper analysis of the significance of the study's outcomes.

Reply 3: Thank you so much for your feedback.

• The results have been labeled to improve readability, sub-sections 3.2.21, 3.2.2.2, (3.2.3.1 to 3.2.3.2), Also the introduction (Sections 1.2 to 1.5).
• For the section suggestion, the juxtaposition of the obtained results with the literature has been conducted, showing a comparison with similar results in Egypt and similar contexts for benchmarking the energy use in dwellings and the economic feasibility of the rooftop PV  (Sections 4.1 and 4.2). Also, a new figure has been produced (figure 7) to summarize the comparison. Moreover, a new figure (Figure 6) has been added to enhance the readability.  

Comment 4: If the authors create a table at the end of the paper listing all abbreviations alphabetically, it may help readers understand the content more easily.

Reply4: An abbreviation list has been added. Also, the less-repeated abbreviations have been deleted to reduce their amount in the manuscript, namely  (Voluntary National Review (VNR)), and terajoules (TJ).
The abbreviations used in Appendix A are mentioned in Table A2

Finally, considering your comment at the beginning of the review, the document's clarity, accuracy, and readability have been enhanced, technical and language-wise.

Thank you very much for your time and support.
Best regards,
Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article aims to diagnose the intensity of energy use of rural buildings to compare it, describe and quantify the correlation between residential electricity consumption with the elements of the built environment and socioeconomic factors, and promote the technical-economic assessment of renewable energy harvesting from photovoltaic panels in rural areas in Egypt from a bottom-up perspective.

A very interesting article, addressing a current topic, of great international as well as local relevance, as carried out by the authors.

The text is well structured, facilitating reading and understanding. Regarding the presentation of the text, here are some suggestions:

-In line 46, correct the citation format (IEA, 2023) to the journal format;

-In line 441, use only Table 1.

An excellent literature review is presented in section 1.

The methodology is presented clearly in section 2, allowing its reproduction.

The results are coherent, complemented by a discussion.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your positive feedback. We deeply appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work. Here are our replies:

Comment 1: In line 46, correct the citation format (IEA, 2023) to the journal format

Reply 1: The citation has been corrected.

Comment 2: In line 441, use only Table 1.
Reply 2: Thank you. The word has been corrected.

Comment 3: An excellent literature review is presented in section 1.
Reply 3: Thank you very much for your positive feedback we appreciate it.

Comment 4: The methodology is presented clearly in section 2, allowing its reproduction.

Reply 4: Thank you for your feedback; we genuinely value it.

Comment 5: The results are coherent, complemented by a discussion.

Reply 5: Thank you very much; we appreciate your positive feedback.

Thank you very much for your time reviewing our manuscript
Best regards

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well written and studies the energy use intensive of rural buildings and the correlation between residential electricity consumption with the built environment in a bottom-up approach and rooftop solar panels with a case study considering 339 rural villages in Northern Egypt.

The abstract could have about 200 words maximum and provide an overview of the work in the article including the Background, Methods, Results and Conclusions. Please summarize the background and provide the main results and conclusions in this section.

In the introduction section, line 157 should be section 1.1.3. and line 193 should be section 1.2. In addition, the objective and hypothesis could be defined in section 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.

The methods and materials section could be more descriptive when explaining the application of the Pearson correlation coefficient and the nominal one-way analysis of the variance.

In the results section, the description of the case study is well written and explained. In line 325 should be written section 3.1.2. and please check text format in line 328. In addition, line 359 should be section 3.1.3.

The references that were written in lines 563 and579 should be cited and further details should be written in the reference section. Furthermore, lines 587, 596 and 646 should be numbered.

In section 3.2.4 the references should be cited and further reference details (website, when it was accessed) should be written in the reference section.

Section 4 could be the discussion section, here results are summarized and discussed according to the background and further perspectives and goals.

In the conclusion section, subsection 5.1. and 5.2 should be further characterized in the discussion and then provided a succinct summary of these subsections in the conclusion.

Best regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language provided could be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Thank you for your intuitive review and feedback. Below, you’ll find our responses to your eight comments:

Comment 1: The abstract could have about 200 words maximum and provide an overview of the work in the article including the Background, Methods, Results and Conclusions. Please summarize the background and provide the main results and conclusions in this section.

Reply1: Thank you so much for your feedback.
 The abstract has been entirely rewritten, revised, and shortened (233 words instead of 350); highlighting all the obtained results and policy implications.

Comment 2: In the introduction section, line 157 should be section 1.1.3. and line 193 should be section 1.2. In addition, the objective and hypothesis could be defined in section 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.

Reply 2: We appreciate your recommendation to improve the readability of the manuscript further. The numbering of sub-sections has been modified, and a new sub-section has been labeled.

Comment 3: The methods and materials section could be more descriptive when explaining the application of the Pearson correlation coefficient and the nominal one-way analysis of the variance.

Reply 3: Thank you for your feedback, which deepens the study’s value.

The method has been enhanced; firstly, the data types (variables) used in the statistical analysis have been better defined with examples from the study's variables: lines (595-597) and (601&602).  Based on that, the Pearson correlation coefficient and the nominal one-way analysis of the variance description have been enhanced and justified why they are suitable for conducting the analysis in the study, such as lines (621-629). Additionally,  more elaboration of both models has been presented, and the Pearson formula has been added and described.

Comment 4: In the results section, the description of the case study is well written and explained. In line 325 should be written section 3.1.2. and please check text format in line 328. In addition, line 359 should be section 3.1.3.
Reply 4: Thank you for the encouraging feedback and the recommendation. The mentioned sections’ numbering has been corrected. The text format has been revised. Also, the entire manuscript has been revised according to these suggestions, all similar sub-sections have been numbered, and all the text format and writing style have been revised.

Comment 5: The references that were written in lines 563 and 579 should be cited and further details should be written in the reference section. Furthermore, lines 587, 596, and 646 should be numbered.

Reply 5: Thank you very much. All references have been properly cited in the reference list, and accordingly, all similar issues in-text, including the newly added similar references. All sub-sections have been numbered

Comment 6: In section 3.2.4 the references should be cited and further reference details (website, when it was accessed) should be written in the reference section.

Reply 6 : All references have been properly cited in the reference list.

 

Comment 7: Section 4 could be the discussion section, here results are summarized and discussed according to the background and further perspectives and goals.

Reply 7: We appreciate the opportunity to further clarify and emphasize the manuscript's coherence.

Section 4 (Discussion) has been entirely developed, starting by summarizing the method taken by the study, then analyzing both research questions (Sections 4.1 and 4.2), showing  the juxtaposition of the obtained results with the literature, such as critical analysis of energy use intensity benchmark (two paragraphs between lines 875-888), then to produce figure 7 to visualize these values, and like the techno-economic feasability ( 4 paragraphs between lines 933-969) .   

 

Comment 8: In the conclusion section, subsection 5.1. and 5.2 should be further characterized in the discussion and then provided a succinct summary of these subsections in the conclusion.

Reply 8: We appreciate your suggestions to strength our paper.

Section 5 provided a breif summary to results obtained in the study. Moreover,  conclusion section have been strengthened by practical implicatioans  (4 Paragraphs, lines   1034-1067), and policy implcactions and recommendations  (lines 1087-1098), and  ( Lines 1104-1108).

 

Thank you very much for your time reviewing our manuscript
Best regards,
Authors