# 185

Dear Aditya Putra Irawan, Kridanto Surendro

I read your paper:

Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods in determining redd+ project location

My comments:

1- On page 2 you say “This framework will consider three primary criteria: impact on climate, contribution to local communities, and biodiversity conservation,based on the CCBS. Each primary criterion will be broken down into several relevant sub-criteria to facilitate a comprehensive assessment of potential project locations”.

In my opinion, you cannot use only three criteria to evaluate alternatives in this rather complex problem, even if you break them down.

2- You propose using AHP to define the weights for criteria, which later will be applied to different MCDM methods, which is a normal procedure used by researchers.

You consider three different MCDM methods for determining the ranking, but it seems that they are considered for different functions.

SAW, WPM, TOPSIS and VIKOR all have the same purpose, that is, determine the scores for each site, and the three of them looking for compromise solutions. However, they differ in the procedure, which are different, but the purpose is unique.

3- In your Figure 1 you put the selection of alternatives and the selection of criteria at the same level, when you cannot define criteria if you do not define first the alternatives that are to evaluate

4- In Table 1 you list 13 criteria, but there is something that called my attention. Why C7. C9 and C11 apply only to women? Men are not working in that scheme. I believe that whatever the reason, that of course I do not discuss, you should explain this, since most probably a reader of your article will have the same question.

And a second question is that it appears that criteria might not be independent, and if so, you cannot use AHP that works only with independent criteria. This fact was clearly established in AHP technical literature. For instance, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11 seems to be closely related.

5- Table 3 is very clear in establishing in linking alternatives, criteria and performance values, and from it appears that the second site (HNDP),appearsbeing one of the best, because the number of its maximum values is clearly higher than the other sites. However, this is only a hint.

I suppose that your criteria are all for benefits or maximum value, but it is surprising that there are not minimization criteria, lake cost, water, investment, etc. Normally, all MCDM methods work simultaneously with both.

6- It appears that the most important criterion is C1 related to ecosystem restoration and it appears to be correct, however, C 13 conservation of threatened and endangered species, does not sound correct, since it is clearly against C1. How can you restore the ecosystem if not special attention is given to threatened and endangered species? It looks contradictory

7- You process this information using five different MCDM and find that all of them reached the same sequence

“This framework will consider three primary criteria: impact on climate, contribution to local communities, and biodiversity conservation, based on the CCBS. Each primary criterion will be broken down into several relevant sub-criteria to facilitate a comprehensive assessment of potential project locations.?”

It is the first time in many year, that I see something like this, that immediately makes me think that something is wrong.

I solved your problem using SIMUS and the result is different, because the ranking is :

HDNP > HDPB > HDBT > HDBL > HDBB

Yours is:

HDNP – HDBB – HDPB – HDBL – HDBT

As you can see, there is coincidence only in the first alternative

These are my comments. Hope they can help

Nolberto Munier