# 215

📷

Dear Hameedullah Zaheb, Obaidullah Obaidi, Sarban Mukhtar, Habiburahman Shirani

I have read your paper:

Comprehensive Analysis and Prioritization of Sustainable Energy Resources Using Analytical Hierarchy Process

My comments:

1- Page 3 “. 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 don’t think that you can develop a robust model when it is based on subjective opinions and wishes, especially related to the field of energy, when you have tangible aspects to consider such as demand, known resources and human capital. I would suggest to work with facts, which are the drivers of the real-world, not with wishes.

2- Page 5 “Critiques include vulnerability to subjective judgements, potential biases, and the necessity for transparency in model development. Addressing these deficiencies ensures the creation of a strong and broadly applicable AHP model”

Vulnerability means resistance to accept changes; and it exists in AHP where the DM must do as prescribed, since his estimates MUST follow transitivity, if not, he is FORCED to CORRECT his ‘transgression”, this is by itself absurd and invalidates the method. The same may apply to weights where the DM decides, bypassing the opinion of thousands of potentially affected people, that have not been even consulted, and thus, violating the Arrows’ Impossibility Theorem, that qualifies this action as a dictatorship. Obviously, as you say, there is a necessity for transparency.

Transparency is in fact inexistent, since it is assumed), that trade-offs are equivalent to weights, and that what is in the mind of the DM can be transferred without hesitation to the real world. Where is the demonstration of these assertions?

In fact, the DM building the initial matrix on arbitrary data, can be different to the another DM or group of DMs performing the same task, that is not even an analysis, because it does not have any mathematical support. Potential biases? Of course, it can involve inclination to certain aspects, and even hide vested interest.

In other words, the procedure is clearly stated but no explanations are given, So, what is the advantage of using a method with no justification of its different steps, except when using the Eigen Value? Please, think about this.

3- “A decision is one of the important factors in the analysis of a problem that has a direct impact on the result”

Without a doubt, when a decision, at least in MCDM, is the result of reliable data, analysis, research, consultation and know-how, otherwise, it I useless

4- “AHP is the best solution for complexity and multi-criteria and SC issues”

This is easily said, but hard to demonstrate. Why a reader must belief what an author says, as if he were the Oracle of Delphi?

5- Page 6 “Following that, four criteria, specifically technological, environmental, economical, and social one, have been defined as having a considerable impact on decision making, and the criteria determination steps include, but are not limited to, stakeholder identification, criteria definition, sustainable energy resource selection”

In Figure 1, why criteria weights must be preceded by sensitivity analysis (SA), shouldn’t it be the opposite? since to perform SA you need to know these weights. And at the same level of criteria preference? You must have first the criteria, and from them compute the weights. Not always preferences are applied to all circumstances

It is not realistic that the DM decides that criterion C2 is three times better than criterion C1, whatever they can be, and then apply that concept to different projects, even in the same problem. For instance, the DM can legally say that comparing two criteria he prefers quality to price in a problem selecting restaurants, but it does not apply, if other alternatives are building a tall rise and also a park. That is, preference cannot be considered constant. Fixing preference is another drawback in AHP

That leads that the DM cannot compute criteria importance without the knowledge of to what alternatives they will be applied, and this is hierarchical basis of AHP

6- In Fig. 2 you certainly know that criteria as per AHP methodology should be independent, but they are not. For instance, it shows that social issues are independent of the other three. They are not, since social issues re influenced by economics and environment, and vice versa. As well, the more technological advance process benefits society, allowing people to get higher wage, and thus, linked with economics and job generation

7- In page 5 “AHP is the best solution for complexity and multi-criteria and SC issues”

I don’t think this assertion deserves a comment. Do you really believe that a method grounded on a rigid vertical hierarchy is also good for complex scenario where there are vertical, diagonal and transversal relationships? In my opinion Saaty realized that and created ANP based on a network

8- In page 5 “In this study, we are going to prioritize one of the alternatives as the most sustainable resource for Afghanistan and rank all of them based on various criteria and SCs that have a direct impact on the alternatives”

If I may I would like to make a clarification: Alternatives are not resources. Resources are the high solar irradiation, winds, etc. Alternatives are means to use those resources. I am not clear yet, do you want to determine which are the most important resources or identify locations?

9- Page 9 “The criteria were weighted according to their perceived importance, as assessed by quantitative surveys, interviews, or expert panels”

“This guarantees that the prioritization model accurately represents the relative importance of each criterion in the decision-making process”

Perceive importance? And what if another team of experts think differently. What will you do?

And you say that this guarantees model accurately? Sincerely, I do not see how.

These are my comments. I hope they can be of help

Nolberto Munier