# 183

Dear Ljudevit Krpan; Ivan Cvitković ;Tanja Poletan Jugovic; Ines Kolanović

I read your paper

Application of Multicriteria Analysis in the Selection of the LNG Terminal Location

My comments:

1- In the abstract you say : “best compromise location” based on system characteristics, available data, set criteria, and limitations”

It is refreshing reading a title like this, since many papers use the word ‘optimization’ when definitely there is not optimal solutions but a compromise solution, or locations, as in this case. This gives a reader the feeling that the authors of the paper know about what they are talking about.

2- “The method of weighted sum values was used. Weighting factors are determined partly in an exact way (where possible) and partly based on the application of Delphi group decision-making methods”

I am afraid that I do not concur in what you say. There are no doubts that weights are essential since not all criteria have the same importance, but there is not and exact way, even using entropy weighting. Why?

Because subjective weights are useless to evaluate alternatives since they are not connected with the content of criteria (a consequence of Shannon Theorem), they are only good to find criteria importance and trade-offs, and because they cannot be constant along the process, due to the fact that they depend on the alternatives, which are not selected at the sometime. This is not my opinion, but algebra and common sense.

As an example, suppose that you have two options to spend your money: By purchasing fruit for dinner, or gratify yourself by going to a coffee shop for coffee and pastry.

The option A (fruits) is a basket with bananas and cherries, and you can make a preference using criteria “cost” and “benefit”; assume that for you, “cost” is always more important than “benefit”

But you have in mind another alternative B, as visiting the coffee shop to enjoy a coffee and a pastry and use the same two criteria. In this case, it could be that you prefer the benefit or enjoyment in going to the coffeeshop over the cost. As you can see your preferences or weights changed, because you are a human being and able to take your decisions and change them if needed.

3- Unfortunately in some paragraphs you use the concept of optimal location, when you specified at the beginning that you are looking for a compromise solution, or if you want, the most convenient location. You also rightly use the word ‘limitations’, something that most methods and papers ignore and thus assuming that resources are unlimited.

It proves that the authors think, reason, research and common sense. For the same token, you are using expressions like harmonize, balance, stakeholders, interest group, that I have rarely seen, if ever, in more than 500 papers I have read and analyzed on MCDM along the years. This makes, in my opinion, a remarkable paper, based on real things, showing reasoning and professionalism, and ma only showing how a MCDM problem MUST be addressed

4- On page 4 “…..a multicriteria analysis of the evaluation of variants is carried out which with its methodology guarantees functionality, reliability and objectivity in determining the location of the LNG terminal”

In complete agreement

A personal remark

Dear authors: I do not criticize a paper that I read, I am neither a reviewer nor a judge, and nobody asked me to do this. I limit to point out some correctness or lack of it that I might encounter with the sole purpose of help the authors, no more than that, and thus, I do not opine if a paper is valuable or not.

However, I will make for first time an exception with your paper, because really surprised me for the professionalism, the reasoning, the experience, the process in studding all the potential sites, the technical conditions, it transpires responsibility, common sense, and the feeling for a reader of a work very well done.

Please, accept my congratulations

Nolberto Munier