Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

      Thank you very much for your affirmation of our work. At the same time, we would like to thank you for reading our paper and providing these beneficial comments for helping us improve the quality of the study. As you will see, we have taken every effort to address those issues. We invite you to read our point-by-point responses in appendix.

All authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting research article with a subject that is not necessarily original but highly relevant for Sustainability. The introduction and conceptual framework are well-explained and the case study and specific subject are also well-presented. However, there are few points that are missing in order to complete the circular idea, starting from the lack of a clearly defined research question which would help understand where this research aims to go and which contributions it intends to make.

The so called "Theoretical framework" reads more as a research design. I found some literature review reflections in the introduction, and it will be practical to separate and complement the theoretical section in order to clearly identify the position of the article in current debates. The authors should develop a short current review of the works on ecological compensation, particularly the critical ones which questioned the aims and methods of this conceptual approach. There are more than 40 articles in Sustainability which address the subject of ecological compensation and half of them in China. It will be desirable if the authors reflect part of this production in their literature review. For instance check: https://www.mdpi.com/455580

The methodology seems to have been explained well, including the hypotheses, assumptions and variables; the study design, time frame and sample size and definition are clear. Not being an expert on Chinese Watersheds, I found the institutional and economic context clear to understand, as well as the relationship dynamics in the basin (upper and lower), and how the method is suitable for what the study seeks to accomplish. However, a further explanation of who were the participants for collection of the empirical data is missing. The article cites “experimental and reference groups”, as well as “cities” and “municipalities”, but there are social actors behind these categories which should be identified and the research ethics approach to discussions with human subjects should be declared.

The graphics and their explanation help to understand the subject, even for general readers with no expertise in the econometric part. Their reliability tests are explained to provide more strength to the study from the authors´ approach. I very much liked how the authors use water quality data in the study.

The conclusions are a bit descriptive as there is no research question to answer. The econometric results are important but to readers without that expertise, the conclusions should make a link to the research question and explain if the question was answered or the objectives were reached and how. The authors should explain what the main contribution to the paper is according to the related (and accurate) literature debate.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

    Thank you very much for your affirmation of our work. At the same time, we would like to thank you for reading our paper and providing these beneficial comments for helping us improve the quality of the study. As you will see, we have taken every effort to address those issues. We invite you to read our point-by-point responses in appendix.

     All authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This author use contract theory to analyze the advantages of horizontal ecological compensation in cross-provincial watershed governance issues based on the basis of the case of Xin'an River Basin, and use SCM to assess the horizontal ecological compensation on the intensity of water pollution. The results have a certain reference value for the water environment in cross-provincial watersheds.

The innovation of the manuscript is general. There are a theoretical framework and an evaluation method, but there is no specific process. No primary data is the biggest drawback. The manuscript is a relatively simple analysis of an established fact, without further principle analysis. In addition, the panel data is only from 2007 to 2016, lack the latest data.

 Other deficiencies are as follows. 

1. Introduction.

Lack of research introduction of basic theory, such as Pigouvian approach and Coasean approach. 

2.Theoretical Framework

Some parameter, such as fwu and fwd, are not described in Table 1. Also the function, Var.

There are some formulas, but there are no data and calculation results.

 3.Method

what is “water pollution intensity”? How is it calculated? what is the unit?

All figures: the coordinates should correspond to the text of the manuscript.

Table 2. and Table 3: How “weight” is calculated? The process needs to be supplemented.

Figure 4: The legend needs to be added. I don’t know the meaning of each line, especially the thick line. Moreover, the figure shows that there is also a big difference in 2010. Please explain the reason.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

     Thank you very much for your affirmation of our work. At the same time, we would like to thank you for reading our paper and providing these beneficial comments for helping us improve the quality of the study. As you will see, we have taken every effort to address those issues. We invite you to read our point-by-point responses in appendix.

   All authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is based on the contract theory to look at  the cross-provincial watershed governance. By applying the contract theory, originally originate in the area of economic partnership on medical sector, to analyze the ecological interaction is important. Here, I would like to look at the politics of the scales in water governance to check upstream and downstream governmenance, rather government. Governance is more inclusive concept.

Highly  recommend to read these papers by citing them as necessary and adapt them to to introduction and theoratical framework.

Withanachchi, S. S., Houdret, A., Nergui, S., Gonzalez, E. E., Tsogtbayar, A., & Ploeger, A. (2014). (Re) configuration of Water Resources Management in Mongolia: A Critical Geopolitical Analysis (No. 13). University of Kassel, Fachbereich Gesellschaftswissenschaften (Social Sciences), Internatioanl Center for Development and Decent Work (ICDD).

 

https://www.uni-kassel.de/upress/online/OpenAccess/978-3-86219-860-3.OpenAccess.pdf

 

and

Pahl-Wostl, C., Gorris, P., Jager, N., Koch, L., Lebel, L., Stein, C., ... & Withanachchi, S. (2021). Scale-related governance challenges in the water–energy–food nexus: Toward a diagnostic approach. Sustainability Science, 16(2), 615-629.   With this outlook, you will able to analyze the who are the stakeholder who are in the governance process before the mathematical analysis.   Just look at the economical output from the governments agencies is not enough to see the ecological interaction in terms of water governance. Thus, I recommend to reformuate the hypothesis.   The study must at the map of the study area.   After the method and material section, there is no clear result and discussion section. You must rewrite that sections.  

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your affirmation of our work. At the same time, we would like to thank you for your time spent in reading our paper and providing these beneficial comments for helping us improve the quality of the study. As you will see, we have taken every effort to address those issues. We invite you to read our point-by-point responses in appendix.

   All authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Can be published.

Reviewer 4 Report

I would like to accept the paper.