Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I attached the file of my comments. Please confirm it. Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are greatly grateful for your valuable and constructive comments. In this version, we carefully checked the manuscript again and amended some statements, as well as revised our manuscript accordingly with changes marked in red. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1- There are some typing errors, the text should be revised for language and editing.

2- Canal water utilization (L125) is 0.8, this means that the loss is 0.52, thus this paper is dealing on improving the technical method system of water rights and water market for only 0.48, what about the rest?

3- Pricing model (Fig (2)); equilibrium price is concentrated on industry only, what about other sectors?

4- L197 - 214: How these impacts can be quantified?

5- Table 4 (L341): It seems this table is summarizing the final findings, however it needs further explanations, and their impacts on Xingxia water situation.

6- L383: Is this means that it was not solved? Did this affects the accuracy of your previous assumptions?

7- L419-421: How, this was explicitly not clear. 

8- What is the milestone or deliverable that ensure this conclusion?

Author Response

We are greatly grateful for your valuable and constructive comments. In this version, we carefully checked the manuscript again and amended some statements, as well as revised our manuscript accordingly with changes marked in red. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article with the title “Research on Water Rights Trading and Pricing Model between 2 Agriculture and Energy development” is interesting, and the scope deals with the Sustainability journal. The authors proposed the water rights transfer price model to improve the technical method system of the water rights and water market, especially for its application in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. However, there are some general issues that should be addressed:

a.     The title should include a case study location since the proposed model only applied in the specific location in China. Probably, the model is not valid for different locations because of any constraints and specific conditions

b.  The validity of the model. The authors didn’t show how to validate or evaluate the model. The acceptable model is the model that is validated with the observed data

In addition, there are some minors issues that should also be addressed:

a.     Abstract. The objective was not stated clearly enough in the abstract

b.   Abstract. The performance of the proposed model should be stated based on the validation/evaluation process

c.  Introduction. The statement “While Israeli water rights transfer system is similar to that in China (lines 68-69)” should be strengthened with the reference

d.     Introduction. The reason for choosing the case study at Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region should be explained in more detail. The authors explained the reason in Materials and Methods; however, in my viewpoint, the reason the specific location is better in the Introduction part is that its part of the background of the study. Then, the authors can add more explanations of the characteristic of the location in the Materials and Method

e.   Materials and Method. Fig 1 is not clear enough to explain water users in Ningxia. There is no unit the Fig 1 (y-axis)

f.      Materials and Method. The authors should add the unit of some parameters, particularly in Equations 2-8. For example TVW is the economic value of industrial water intake, what is the unit of TVW? Etc.

g.     Materials and Method. The list of data should be tabulated in the specific table.

h.     Results. It is better to add the table that lists and summarized supply price and demand price, as well as the equilibrium price

i.      Overall. It is better to add more tables or graphics to make the article clearer and more attractive

Therefore, I think the article can be accepted after revision by addressing the issues. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are greatly grateful for your valuable and constructive comments. In this version, we carefully checked the manuscript again and amended some statements, as well as revised our manuscript accordingly with changes marked in red. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article introduces a model of water rights trading and pricing. The article is interesting but before publishing it must be significantly modified.

In the whole article: do not use words “transferor” and “transferee” as these words do not mean what you meant, see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/transferor and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/transferee, respectively.

-        Line 13: Ningxia – is it a city or province?

-        Lines 13-17: The sentence is difficult to read.

-        Lines 17-20: The sentence is difficult to read. What is “…energy industrial…”?

-        Abstract should be modified to make it understandable. Add a sentence or two on the results of the study.

-        Introduction is too lengthy and gives a minimum of idea on what the article concentrates on. For this reason, it should be modified. Also the novelty of the research should be emphasized.

-        Also define what you mean by “Ningxia.” Is it the “Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region” as mentioned in the Introduction?

-        Fig. 2: In some boxes there are “… …”. Does it mean, that there is something missing? The data should be given in full. You should comment on relations specified in the figure in detail otherwise it is not understandable.

-        There should be two separate Discussion and Conclusion sections. The Discussion section should include the interpretations of findings in the Results section and compare them with other relevant studies in the field. The Conclusion section should conclude and give an overview of the results of the study, and some limitations of the study and possible future study or studies induced by the results of the study.

-        What is the novelty of the study? Is that the model? Why? Discuss.

The English language should be checked throughout the paper.

Author Response

We are greatly grateful for your valuable and constructive comments. In this version, we carefully checked the manuscript again and amended some statements, as well as revised our manuscript accordingly with changes marked in red. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate your polite responses to my previous comments.

However, I think that contents in “Results” and “Discussions” are still not proper. 

 

The part of Discussions should be discussed based on the “Results”. Readers may be able to understand what authors want to say qualitatively in this “Discussions”. However, readers cannot understand it quantitatively because it is not described what tables, figures or values lead to the discussion. Though some simulated results are shown in “Results”, readers cannot understand the relationship between the results and the discussions. Then, some quantitative contents, which are not described in “Discussions”, are shown in “Conclusions”. 

I think authors should reconsider the organization of this article (Results, Discussions and Conclusions) from the beginning.

Author Response

We are greatly grateful for your valuable and constructive comments. In this version, we adjusted content of Results, Discussions and Conclusions which is marked in red. Please don’t hesitate to point out the remaining errors in the new version, and we will respond and correct them carefully.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article has been improved properly based on my comments previously. I think it can be accepted

Author Response

Thanks again for your valuable and constructive comments.