# 184

Dear Habiburahman Shirani, Obaidullah Obaidi , Obaidullah Obaidi Galgotias, Mikaeel Ahmadi

I read your paper

Comprehensive Analysis and Prioritization of Sustainable Energy Resources Using Analytical Hierarchy Process Article in Sustainability ·

My comments:

1- In page 3 you say: “By utilizing the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a decision-making tool, we aim to develop a robust decision-making model that accommodates the diverse criteria and sub-criteria (SCs) influencing the prioritization of energy resources”

I very much doubt that the AHP, if it is true, that can accommodate diverse criteria, is able to prioritize energy resources. First, because weights in any MCDM method are not able to do that, because weights are not related with the criteria content which oversee that. Weights are only useful to find the relative importance of criteria and find trade-offs values. Criteria importance do not play any role in evaluating alternatives.

2- In page 3 “This model seeks to capture the intricate interplay between environmental impact, economic viability, social acceptance, technological feasibility, and resource availability”

I agree, this is the aim of MCDM, but not by using AHP. I want to remind you that this method works only with independent criteria

3- “Assess the robustness of the prioritization model through sensitivity analyses, considering variations in criteria weights and data inputs; and provide evidence-based policy implications and recommendations derived from the prioritized sustainable energy resources, considering regional disparities and challenges”

Sensitivity analysis cannot work with weights, let alone in the AHP context, because increasing a weight only means displacing the corresponding criterion line parallel to itself. At the end, it may indeed influence the ranking, only because a geometric displacement. To influence the ranking, you need to increase / decrease the content of a criterion. It will not modify the criterion structure, but may produce difference related to other criteria, and that difference may or not have influence in the ranking. For this, you need to work with resources, whatever kind they can be

This is because a criterion, first, must be related with the best alternative and second since the criterion normally is increased or decreased in a certain extent.

Since with weights nothing of these happens, then, you can understand that they do not have influence. These is not only my thinking, but also geometry and lineal algebra

6- “Also, several studies have investigated sustainable energy transitions and the use of the AHP in similar contexts”

Interesting, since you assert that, perhaps you can explain us how AHP can handle transitions, a very complex issue indeed, when there are aspects that it cannot handle, like a considerable variation of alternatives and criteria along time, possibly until 2050, with periodical changes in criteria and contents. Determining which oil-fired power plants must me reduced gradually and decommissioned, new technologies introduced, like organic PV, etc. Believe me, I know what I am talking about, because it is something I already did not many years ago. I will be glad to share my findings

7- I agree that AHP is the most used MCDM method and that there are thousands of papers written using it. Just have a look in Scopus of the abstracts of those papers and you will realize that may be 80% of them are violating Saaty recommendations on respecting the independence of criteria or that AHP must not be used with fuzzy, because the method is already fuzzy.

There is flagrant evidence that the reviewers that ‘review’ those papers did not take to much care or perhaps ignorance in correcting anomalies, and then accepted anything, because, anyway nobody will notice.

MCDM methods are not blessed with having a mathematical formula, where you input data and get a result. This does not exist in MCDM, therefore, uncountable times the authors express that they got a satisfactory result or even worse, an optimal result. Unfortunately, nobody can say that using any MCDM method, because for that you need to compare your results with a yardstick expressing reality, and it does not exist.

AHP, to difference to other methods, has convinced many people that they can solve complex problems just by inputting numbers that are in their mind, hitting the start button, and get the solution. Even they are helped by a formula that tells that you must modify your ‘estimates’

Beautiful, I grant that. Thinking, reasoning, investigating, consulting? No….., what for?

AHP is the most criticized method. Bearing witness of that are more that 100 researchers that have questioned some aspect of it.

I do not see any reason in continuing with this analysis due to our deep and different opinions on this method.

Surprisingly, you mention only and in general, only three drawbacks of the methods, when I have counted and published 29, and as I always do, justifying my judgement

Anyway, I hope than perhaps my writing may help you

Nolberto Munier