A Spatial Analysis of the Potentials for Offshore Wind Farm Locations in the North Sea Region: Challenges and Opportunities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I recommend this paper to be accepted as it is. I don't see the need for further revisions. 

Reviewer 2 Report

All my comments were addressed, and I recommend the paper for publication

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper the authors use a mixed-methods approach which combined qualitative research techniques including interviews and textual analysis with qualitative analysis using GIS in order to assess the potential for the development of clean energy infrastructure in the North Sea. Considering the complexity of the project design, the authors did an excellent job explaining their data, where it comes from, and what its limitations are. Overall, I think that this is a sound paper which not only provides important insight into the potential exploitation of the North Sea for the development of renewable energy infrastructure, but also does a good job reviewing the existing literature in order for the reader to gain strong insight into the problem and its many nuances. I think that the categorical approach was a good way to address the potential benefits and costs of different scenarios.

The authors did an excellent job revising this paper. All concerns from the original submission have been addressed. The paper is now much easier to follow. I suggest that the paper be accepted in its current form. Great work.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

General comments:

 this is a well written and well structured paper which makes a significant contribution to the relevant literature. As a primarily qualitative researcher,  I am not a technical expert in this field so I cannot assess the details of the methods or implementation thereof. 

The paper includes a large number of headings and sub-headings. A lumbering system for sub-headings would be very helpful. 

The paper requires a thorough proof-reading by a native speaker or equivalent. The typos etc. detailed below should be taken as examples only. 

 

minor / detailed comments:

The first sentence of the introduction is a very general statement and does not tell the reader very much - Perhaps replace with something along similar lines to the first sentence of the abstract? 

statement of objectives: Is the objective of the paper not to make suggestions regarding the allocation of space rather than to allocate space per se ( a planning / public administration task)?

p3, 102-103 - this sentence needs rephrasing - doesn't quite work grammatically as it is. 

Fig. 1 if possible increase size to make it easier to read

P4. 134 - consider replacing realised with conducted. 

p6. 171 - missing word between 'resulted' and 'merging'?

p6 185 - the EEZ of the countries

Table 2. text should not be right justified 

p7 211 - spell out four instead of 4

p8 233 - missing word - the literature review

p8 234 - consider replacing realised with conducted. 

p8 253 - is planning cultures the correct term here? Or do you mean planning traditions or systems? It is unclear what precisely is referred. There is an extensive literature on planning cultures which could be referenced earlier in the paper if this is the focus here. 

p10 294 - consider replacing last with lastly or finally

the case study area is introduced twice in the paper. this is a little confusing.

p10 306 - Wadden Sea applies to Denmark also

p11 310 - 'offshore land' what is meant by this phrase? offshore space? 

p11 338 - open to debate instead of debates

p28 751 big debates does not seem like an appropriate term here (too colloquial)

p30 798 - should this title be methodological reflections?

p32 line 896 - on the other side - should be replaced with 'on the other hand'

References - there appear to be some inconsistencies in referencing style - e.g. in some cases first names spelt out and others not. 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of this paper is very complex and timely. The authors have done an impressive amount of work, collecting and aggregating disparate data and using mixed methods approach. The paper in its current form is too lengthy, and is hard to follow. It also has too many tables and figures. In order to make it publishable, the authors need to either split it into two separate papers (one, focusing on interviews, and the other – on GIS visualizations) or shorten the text and move many tables and figures into Appendix and/or supplementary materials section. Below are specific comments:

The number of acronyms and abbreviations in this paper is overwhelming. I recommend you make a table of abbreviations and make it Appendix 1. Line spacing is not consistent throughout the paper All subheadings should be numbered consistently, otherwise it is hard to follow the paper Table 1 – add horizontal lines between offshore activities, otherwise it is hard to understand where one ends and the next one starts Table 5 – explain why you used 500m buffers for various activities. Explain why you used quantile classification for fishing intensity and not natural breaks or equal interval classification. Explain what you mean by “graphically harmonizing” Lines 173 – how did you choose 37 and 97 hours as thresholds for the intensity? These seem arbitrarily selected Line 175 – give the name of the coordinate system (spell out what ED50/TM 0 N is) Line 176 – 2) should be 3) Lines 202, 445, 538 – Annex should be Appendix Figure 2 – distance to shore labels (50 and 100 km) are wrong in the northeastern part of the map, they should be switched Lines 300-307 – this should be moved to line 106 and should not be a separate section Remove Figure 4 because it is the same as figure 2 Line 310 – should be just “Results” Figure 5 – black lines and light yellow areas should be in the legend Figure 6 – add units to X axis Figure 7 – what are kmp Table 4 – add headers to 3 columns Lines 510-530 – remove bold formatting Figures 5, 8-11 are too small! It is hard to see the map and the table. These are the most important figures in the paper, so you should make them bigger so each figure takes up an entire page. Figures 8-11 – add think black lines to the legend; nine colors of water depth by distance are too similar, and it is confusing. Think about a better way to show this Figure 12 and Table 12 – similar information is presented in two different ways, and it is confusing to the reader. Select one format (bar chart or table) for both Conclusions and directions – since you submitted to a GIS journal, discuss the role of GIS in scenario development and visualization

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper the authors use a mixed-methods approach which combined qualitative research techniques including interviews and textual analysis with qualitative analysis using GIS in order to assess the potential for the development of clean energy infrastructure in the North Sea. Considering the complexity of the project design, the authors did an excellent job explaining their data, where it comes from, and what its limitations are. Overall, I think that this is a sound paper which not only provides important insight into the potential exploitation of the North Sea for the development of renewable energy infrastructure, but also does a good job reviewing the existing literature in order for the reader to gain strong insight into the problem and its many nuances. I think that the categorical approach was a good way to address the potential benefits and costs of different scenarios.

 

Major Concerns:

(1) In the paragraph from Line 499 to Line 508, I think that it needs to be made explicitly clear how these categories are derived. It seems as though they are based on information obtained in the interviews, but this could be made clearer.

(2) In the subsection "Scenarios for the management of space allocation for future energy deployment int he North Sea (2050) and their spatial implications" which begins on Line 540, the entire subsection is awkwardly formatted and could be presented more clearly. One possibility could be to use each point ( 1), 2), etc.) as a sub-heading. In its current format, this subsection is hard to read.

(3) In the paragraph spanning Line 674 through Line 978, it is mentioned that "A focus in achieving the energy goals would also imply the enforcement of policies on a more sustainable way of producing and consuming goods, including reorientation towards local markets." In particular, the last clause, the reference of "reorienting towards local markets", is not necessarily true. There are many possible examples of such sustainability oriented policy, each with many possible outcomes. Making this claim, especially without reference, is incorrect. I would recommend (1) finding and referencing an economics text which discusses this problem, and (2) either mentioning/discussing other possible outcomes or at least acknowledging that "reorientation towards local markets" is by no means a certainty, rather it is a possible outcome. 

 

Minor Concerns:

Line 51: The reference [8] is listed twice in the same place

Line 176: "2)" should become "3)"

Line 185: "EEZ" needs to be "Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ)"

Throughout the paper there is an inconsistent use of "." and "," to indicate decimals.

In Table 5, the bottom right cell reads "Minimum" but Minimum is not one of the possible options. Was this supposed to read "Medium"?