# 135

DearMohammad Amin Vaziri Rad , Habib Forootan Fard , Kian Khazanedari , Ashkan Toopshekan , Shiva Ourang , Majid Khanali , Shiva Gorjian , Leila Fereidooni , Alibakhsh Kasaeian

I read your paper:

A global framework for maximizing sustainable development indexes in agri-photovoltaic-based renewable systems: Integrating DEMATEL, ANP, and MCDM methods

My comments:

1- In my opinion you should explain the difference between goal and target, for the reader better understand your paper, since both words have different meanings, especially when you refer to the 17 goals and 169 targets of SDG, as well, a very brief description of what DEMATEL is and how it works, although in this case you apply it to ANP, same for HOMER, that is a microgrid software to optimizing microgrid designs, same for agri-photovoltaics, and other technical terms. I fail to see where you say which is the purpose of this study. I was puzzled when I read about greenhouse demand.

You should have said from the very beginning that your study refers to the production of energy to satisfy the demand of electricity for a large greenhouse. I had to read several pages until you more or less clarify this issue. I guess that a reader will have the same doubt that I had, wondering what is the purpose of this paper.

2- In page 1 you say “The resulting relation matrix is then imported into the Analytic Network Process (ANP) to enhance the reliability of criteria weighting”

You introduce the concept of ‘relations matrix’ but don’t explain what it is. Not everybody knows that it refers to DEMATEL, and possibly do not even know what it is.

3- In page 1 “Finally, the weighted multi-criteria decisionmaking (MCDM) method is employed to address the real greenhouse demand”

Do you see what I mean? You do not explain that the paper refers to a greenhouse and its

demands of electric energy

4- The paper gives very good and reliable information about consumption, prices and demands, not often seen in other papers. This is valuable contribution

5- In page 3 “The findings of their study demonstrated that considering economies-of-scale and an electricity price of >8.3 $/kWh, the top 10% of most cost-efficient farms had the potential to satisfy 8.8%”

Is this price correct? I believe there is an error, it possibly should be 0.0825 $/kWh

6- “Secondly, it employs an Influence Relation Map (IRM) to illustrate the relationships between factors, thereby facilitating a comprehensive understanding of their mutual influences”

I guess that the relationships are not subjective or by intuition, but reasoned, analyzed, researched, etc. From this point of view, you can assign a value, say from 1 to 1O to grade them. This procedure is more rational than trying to make a pair-wise compassion. From this point a view, your paper shows a novel method, at least for me.

7- In page 5 “finally, the determined objective weights were incorporated into a subjective method, the Analytic Network Process (ANP), and applied in the TOPSIS MCDM method”

I am lost here; if you already have the weights for criteria, why do you go at the ANP and ALSO to TOPSIS? I am no saying that you are wrong, simply I do not understand the duality of using two methods

8- In Figure 2, what is Pload? Regarding this figure it looks very complete and interesting, but I believe that you should explain is, because there are also terms and relationships that are rather difficult to understand.

9- On page 5 “Fig. 3 shows the satellite view of Fereydoon Shahr city, while Fig. 4 presents the monthly and daily average load profile of a typical greenhouse in this region”

On what greenhouse and greenhouse area are you talking about? Only a little later you indicate that you are talking about large greenhouses, which makes sense, but until reaching that point (5 pages), the reader does not know why you mention greenhouses

10- Figure 5 is very interesting and it appears that wind and PV are almost opposite. In July is the maximum solar radiation and the very close lowest wind potential, which is the opposite in January. This is the first time that I see this very useful comparison. Is there any reason?

11- Page 8. What is a renewable fraction?

12- In page 9 “In the DEMATEL method, the objective is to determine the interrelationships among different criteria and factors involved in the decision-making process. The relation detection process in DEMATEL helps in understanding the cause-and-effect relationships among these factors”

I am not sure I share your last paragraph. If you analyze DEMATEL you assign values to each criterion and then find their differences in a square matrix. The rows show which criteria dominates which, and the columns the inverse, the dominated criteria.

Comparing rows and columns you determine outranking. But in my opinion, the difference does not indicate a cause-effect relationship, but a simple difference between two values.

Suppose for instance that criterion C4 refers to amount of snowfall in a mountain route and you give it an importance of 3, and that criterion C6 refers to maximum speed in that road, with an importance of 1. The DM considers thus C4 > C6, and because they are normalized values, he finds that the difference is 3 – 1 = 2, and C4 dominating C6. In normal weather each criterion is independent of the other, they are related only when snowfall surpasses a certain limit, triggers an alarm, and causes a decrease of speed in C6.

Then there is a cause and an effect, but it does not explain why difference exists. Of course, if the DM investigates, we will find that this is due to safety reasons, since high speed in heavy snowfall is dangerous, and the cause-effect relationship disappeared with the snowfall decreases and melts. Therefore, per se, the difference found by DEMATEL does not necessarily mean a cause-effect relationship, at least from my point of view.

You are right when saying “the lack of a constant framework to identify the relationships between goals makes applying this method more challenging”

In may opinion there are a lot of cause-effect relationship in the 169 criteria, for instance related to poverty and housing, or health or education. I guess that criteria weights can be determined by outranking.

These are my comments. The paper treats a very interesting subject and it excels in giving actual and valuable data. However, in my opinion, it is not well structured. It is very confusing and as that difficult to read. There is not a plan, everything is mixed, and thus, difficult to understand.

I hope my observations can be of help

Nolberto Munier