Optimal Allocation Model for Water Resources Coupled with Ecological Value Factors—A Case Study of Dalian, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please, see the enclosed file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript Number: water-1531207
Title: Optimal Allocation Model for Water Resources Coupled with 2 Ecological Value Factors-A Case Study of Dalian, China
Editor: This manuscript presents an inexact two-stage stochastic programming (ITSP) model for supporting water resource allocation for the four main water sectors (industry, municipal, agriculture, and environ-mental) in Dalian, China.
Overall, the paper is well written and easy to follow, I recommend this manuscript for publication with these issues being addressed.
Comments:
- Abstract is general information, the finding should be added.
- The references are not in the journal format [1] should not be superscript.
- For the study area in Figure 1, it is better to add longitude and latitude
- Figure 1 is not clear; it should be replaced by higher resolution figure.
- Figure 1 came before it is explained in the text. The figure should be described before it appears.
- Subtitle 3 and 3.1 Research ideas should be replaces by research objectives or research aims.
- RMB should be defined at the first time it appears in the paper
- hm2 should be defined at the first time it appears in the paper
- Figures 9-11 should be divided to a, b and c (a-industry, b-municipal, c-agriculture).
- Figures 6-11 are not clear
- Conclusion is general information, the finding should be added
- References are quite old and require update (only one paper in 2018) the years 2019-2021??
Minor comments:
- Line 14: delete the before water resources
- Line 16: was replaced by were
- Line 16: Our study replaced by the current study
- Line 45: people replaced by researchers
- Line 57: constructed replaced by developed
- Line 68: m3 replaced by m3
- Line 218: because replaced by due to
- Line 286: over time replaced by over the time
- Line 300 and 302: period 1 to replaced by period from 1 to
- Line 330: established replaced by developed
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The submitted manuscript is interesting but the writing of the paper is confusing and difficult to understand for those who are not familiar with the topic being developed.
In addition, the manuscript needs a major revision of the writing and spelling. There are numerous spelling errors, missing spaces, formatting inconsistencies and many others, a detailed list of which would be too long to present. The manuscript needs to be revised in depth, give coherence to the presentation of results and resubmit for revision.
Care should be taken with the placement of spaces and the number of decimal places in the numerical figures, since some are presented with two decimal places and others without decimal places. My suggestion in this regard is that they should all be placed without decimals, given the nature of the magnitudes presented. In this regard, I will point out some details that should be improved:
Magnitudes of four or more significant figures must have a thousands separator. For example, on line 62 they do not and on line 69 they do. The document should be consistent in all aspects.
Paragraph 62-70 has no bibliographic references.
In figure 1 and line 75-76 the integrated zones are represented with Roman numerals and then in table 1 and following texts they are represented with Arabic numerals. Since their representation has been defined with Roman numerals, the rest of the manuscript should refer to them in Roman numerals, and also in table 1, where instead of i=1 it should say I, in i=2 it should say II and so on. On the other hand if the administrative regions have names, in the same table 1 it should say instead of j=3 it should say Jinpu and so on. The header of table 1 should indicate that the numbers presented are the percentage. On the other hand, since the integrated zones correspond to an administrative region, and do not mix with each other (logically), it is unnecessary to put six columns and so many zeros. It is sufficient for one column to indicate that zones I to XI are the Zhuanghe region.
Section 3.2 seems to be based on equations from reference [12] (line 91), but they should indicate that they are adapted by the authors for their purposes.
As for the results, Tables 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 seem to present a probabilistic interval of results, which has not been described in the table header, so the reader sees the magnitude and its units, but does not know what it refers to (whether it is an interval between minimum and maximum, a confidence interval, or what it is). In addition, I consider that decimals are not necessary, it is enough to put the whole numbers and aligned for better visualization, with a hyphen instead of a comma. Also, it would be more elegant to put the names of the regions instead of j=1.
Figures 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11 do not indicate the units of the magnitude represented.
Section 4.2 talks about loss of areas and gives as units hm2, when initially the areas have been measured in hectares. Check if this is correct and give all measurements in the same units if possible to give coherence to the text.
Regarding section 4.3, the emission values lack any discussion, and it is not known whether the estimated results are high or low, as they are absolute magnitudes and whether they are high or low emissions will depend on the watershed where they occur. They should indicate in the text and the graph where the limit value would be from which they are inadequate values.
It should be pointed out that section 4 does not present discussion in any of the results, although in the title they have indicated "Results and discussion". They should follow the instructions to the authors regarding how to elaborate the discussion of the results.
The bibliography is not presented in accordance with the style of the journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper "Optimal Allocation Model for Water Resources Coupled with Ecological Value Factors - A case Study of Dalian, China" is interesting but the current version of manuscript needs revisions before further consideration.
The aim of the paper should be assessed more uniformly through the paper.
Moreover, the authors should start with a clear question(s) that will be answered. The objectives and/or research questions section would help to summarize and focus the overall aim of the study and improve the conclusions section, once the main ideas are clearly systematized.
As far as the methodological approach is concerning, the procedure should be further explained for a full comprehension of the analysis and for replication.
Moreover, the literature should be enriched, in such a way that the role of water for sustainability is identified (Aldieri et al., 2021; Bai et al., 2019).
The results of the analysis should be further discussed and improved also in terms of policy implications. The contribution can be made evident only putting the accent on the gap in the literature.
The quality of communication should be improved. Some sentences are not clear and some parts are confusing, such as the data description section.
References
Aldieri, L., Brahmi, M., Chen, J., Vinci, C. P. (2021). Knowledge Spillovers and Technical Efficiency for Cleaner Production: An Economic Analysis from Agriculture Innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128830.
Bai Y., Ochuodho T. O. and Yang J. (2019). Impact of land use and climate change on water-related ecosystem services in Kentucky, USA. Ecological Indicators, 102, 51-64.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It is difficult to see where the changes were implemented in the revised version of the manuscript. I suggest the authors to provide a new version of the revised one where changes are all tracked.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-authors, we are very grateful to you for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. we appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Optimal Allocation Model for Water Resources Coupled with Ecological Value Factors—A Case Study of Dalian, China”(ID: water-1531207).
Here are responses to your comments:
Comment：When we have received and responded to all reviewers' comments, we will provide a new version of the revised one where changes are all tracked.
I would be happy to make any further changes that may be required. Looking forward to your reply.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have made many of the modifications indicated in my first revision, in addition to revising the large number of errors in the first version.
However, for the final version, there are still many small errors that are likely to be modified by the editing service.
For example, the placement of spaces in the magnitudes and units, in the bibliographic citations and in general in the texts and formulas.
In tables 1, 3, 4 and 5 there is no indication of the range they present. In the authors' answers they say that it is the minimum and maximum of the values, but they have not shown it in the header of the tables nor in the text of the manuscript.
In figures 10 to 12 the placement of the letters a, b, c is not correct, due to some editing problem.
Finally, we would like to insist that the bibliographical references in the final list have not been adapted to the style of the journal and should be modified either by the authors or by the final editing service.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-authors, we are very grateful to you for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. we appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Optimal Allocation Model for Water Resources Coupled with Ecological Value Factors—A Case Study of Dalian, China”(ID: water-1531207).
Here are responses to your comments:
Comment No.1：We have indicated what the table data represents in the table headings and in the text.（For details see lines 221, 222, 224, 259, 280, 281, 282, 307, 318, 319 and 320.）
Comment No.2：In Figure 10-12, the letters a, b and c are incorrectly positioned, probably due to the display, and we have made further changes to it.
Comment No.3：We have revised the format of the references again.
I would be happy to make any further changes that may be required.Looking forward to your reply.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper has been improved according to the reviewers' comments. Now the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-authors, I would like to thank you very much for your endorsement of our manuscript“Optimal Allocation Model for Water Resources Coupled with Ecological Value Factors—A Case Study of Dalian, China”(ID: water-1531207).
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I am glad that the authors followed my comments and suggestions to improve their manuscript.
