Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks for your submission. The comments are as follows:

1. What is the scientific question of this manuscript, which needs to research?

2. The is much more problem in figure 2, like the border latitude and longitude, the national thumbnails and others, which doesn't conform to the thematic standard specification. Please double-check it by following GB/T 12343.1-2008.

3. In this manuscript, the data normalization method is based on max-min value. How to deal with y_ij=0? The carrying capacity of some indicators will be 0.

4. There are much more wrong of indicator's unit in the table 1. Like, m³ ,m³/km², etc.

5. The figure 4 should be improved. There are 4 images and use the same color scheme, but they are different of each image.

6. All reference should be double-check. For example, there is a wrong of 10aTO in line 573.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper constructed an assessment system of sustainable water utilization (SWU) based on Pressure-State-Response framework, and revealed the spatial agglomeration characteristics and differentiation factors of SWU in the Yellow River Basin in China. The topic is interesting, and the research perspective is innovative. I suggest a minor revision before publication. Here are some suggestions to help further improve the manuscript.

1. It is necessary to supplement the latest literature on sustainable water resources in the Introduction.

2. Some expressions in the paper should be unified, such as sustainable water utilization (SWU).

3. The implications need to be more general, especially regarding Sustainable Development Goals 2030;

4. Target 6.1-6.6 in Table 1 should be explained at the bottom of the table.

5. Highlight research limitations and proposals for future studies in the conclusions.

6. What is the reference value of this study for other scholars?

7. The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for your kind comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I think this is a good job. The topic and research work are very interesting. The paper is excellent, and it can be accepted for publication. 

Author Response

Thanks for your kind comments. Best wishes.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author

Thanks for your repley. Please double check more wrong in manuscript.

1. Please revise all reference format by following MDPI requirement. There is much more problem form ref. 1 to 23.

2. The thematic map is not clear, please revise it (300dpi).

Author Response

Thank you very much for your highly efficient processing of our manuscript. Please see the attached revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The latest version of this manuscript can be accepted for publication. I do not have any further comments. 

Author Response

Thanks for your kind comments. Best wishes.