An Integrated Approach to Green Mines Based on Hesitant Fuzzy TOPSIS: Green Degree Analysis and Policy Implications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The envisaged work can be supported by further multiplying numerical examples.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments, The model proposed in this paper has only been used for vanadium and titanium magnetite mines, and the results of the step-by-step process are the same for the evaluation of other mines. Furthermore, the evaluation model proposed in this study can be extended to other areas in China, such as the green development level of manufacturing industry. In addition, to the contribution mentioned above, our study had some limitations that are worth attention. In the evaluation of green mines, we have constructed a single-layer evaluation index system and only used it for vanadium and titanium magnetite mines，but did not construct a more detailed multi-layer index system. Therefore, in future research, we can try to construct a multi-layer evaluation index system and give more examples of other mine types. Thanks again.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Overall, the manuscript is well-written and logically constructed, however, please ensure that the formatting of the headings and sub-headings is consistent. Also, ensure the punctuations are consistent throughout the manuscript.
1. The introduction is well-written and logically constructed. However, the section needs a more recent literature review.
2. In Figure 1, keep the same nomenclature as described in Section 2.1 and write X1 to X6 for all the blocks in the figure.
3. In Section 2.2, Page 5, define m, sigma, and q.
4. In Section 2.2, on lines 185 and 186 the manuscript talks about Hamming distance, Euclidean distance, and Hausdorff distance however the Hausdorff distance is not shown in the entire manuscript.
5. In Section 2.2, Page 6, define l and w used in equations 4 to 7.
6. In Section 2.2, on line 199, does the Hamming distance reference to equation 7 and Euclidean distance reference to equation 8 correct? Should that be equation 9 and equation 10? Otherwise, Equations 9 and 10 are not referred to in the manuscript.
7. In Section 2.3, on line 205, use “,” instead of “、”
8. In Section 3.2, on line 276, do you mean in Liangshan Prefecture (2016-2012) or (2016-2020)?
9. In Section 4.1, on lines 291 and 292, the optimism and pessimism criteria are the same.
Author Response
Response#2 to Reviewer#2:
Overall, the manuscript is well-written and logically constructed, however, please ensure that the formatting of the headings and sub-headings is consistent. Also, ensure the punctuations are consistent throughout the manuscript.
- Comment：
The introduction is well-written and logically constructed. However, the section needs a more recent literature review.
Response:
Thank you for your review comments. We appreciate your suggestions and have made the necessary revisions to the paper. Firstly, We have modified the formatting of headings and sub-headings, and also modified the punctuations. Additionally, We have included an updated literature review in the introduction, and the revised literature review is as follows：
We hope that these revisions meet your requirements and once again, thank you for your valuable comments.
- Comment：
In Figure 1, keep the same nomenclature as described in Section 2.1 and write X1 to X6 for all the blocks in the figure.
Response:
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our paper. We have revised the figure and keep the same nomenclature as described in Section 2.1,the revised figure is as follows：
We hope that these modifications will meet your requirements.
- Comment：
In Section 2.2, Page 5, define m, sigma, and q.
Response:
Thank you very much for your comments and insightful observations. We have revised and defined m, sigma and q. The revised version is as follows:
Let denote the distance between PIS and scheme, let denote the distance between NIS and scheme. Where m is the number of indicators, are the largest values in .
- Comment：
In Section 2.2, on lines 185 and 186 the manuscript talks about Hamming distance, Euclidean distance, and Hausdorff distance however the Hausdorff distance is not shown in the entire manuscript.
Response:
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and thorough review. In section 2.2, the equations related to the Hamming distance and Euclidean distance mentioned in the text have been added, please see Equation 8 and Equation 9:
（3）The hesitant normalized Hamming-Hausdorff distance (HNHH)
（8）
（9）
Thank you again for your valuable comments.
- Comment：
In Section 2.2, Page 6, define l and w used in equations 4 to 7.
Response:
We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments. We have modified the problem. The revised version is as follows:
Let be the weight of the indicator and be the number of elements in the hesitant fuzzy number .
Once again, thank you for your comments.
- Comment：
In Section 2.2, on line 199, does the Hamming distance reference to equation 7 and Euclidean distance reference to equation 8 correct? Should that be equation 9 and equation 10? Otherwise, Equations 9 and 10 are not referred to in the manuscript.
Response:
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and thorough review. The Hamming distance and Euclidean distance have been mentioned above (Eqs. 4-7), so equations 9 and 10 are deleted. Thank you again for your valuable comments.Thank you again for your valuable comments.
- Comment：
In Section 2.3, on line 205, use “,” instead of “、”
Response:
Thank you very much for your patient comments, We have modified this punctuation and the change is as follows：
Kernel method is one of the research hotspots in machine learning field, which is widely used in classification, face recognition, comprehensive evaluation.
Thank you again.
- Comment：
In Section 3.2, on line 276, do you mean in Liangshan Prefecture (2016-2012) or (2016-2020)?
Response:
Thank you very much for your comments. In Section 3.2, it is in Liangshan Prefecture (2016-2020), we have made corresponding changes in the text. Thank you again for your valuable domain.
- Comment：
In Section 4.1, on lines 291 and 292, the optimism and pessimism criteria are the same.
Response:
Thank you very much for your feedback. But the optimism and pessimism criteria are not the same. For example, The element in the second column of the fifth row of Table 2, and the elements in the second column of the fifth row of Table 3, the former are measured by the pessimistic method, and the latter are measured by the optimistic method, they are not the same.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
It seems to me to be a correct theoretical model of evaluation. As for the applicable policies, they seem to me to be somewhat scarce and I think that more should be done in this framework of the problems of the mines.
Author Response
Response#3 to Reviewer#3:
It seems to me to be a correct theoretical model of evaluation.
Comment：
As for the applicable policies, they seem to me to be somewhat scarce and I think that more should be done in this framework of the problems of the mines.
Response:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. the evaluation model proposed in this study can be extended to other areas in China, such as the green development level of manufacturing industry. In addition, to the contribution mentioned above, our study had some limitations that are worth attention. In the evaluation of green mines, we have constructed a single-layer evaluation index system and only used it for vanadium and titanium magnetite mines，but did not construct a more detailed multi-layer index system. Therefore, in future research, we can try to construct a multi-layer evaluation index system and give more examples of other mine types.
Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Тhis paper proposes a improved evaluation method for mining firms based on hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS and kernel method. The indexes were based on five criteria directed to the degree of green of each one of them.Therefore HFS was expanded and different expansion modes were compared with regard to the evaluation of the green degree of the whole set. Basically, the mathematical model has been improved and applied to real mine in China. The work is well written and deserves publication in the present shape.
Author Response
Thank you for your recognition and appreciation of this article. Thank you again.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors apply the hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS and kernel methods to evaluate the degree of green quality of vanadium titanomagnetite mine in the Panxi area of China. The collected indexes of the green degree for this mine, of independent experts in accord with several regulation plans for green mining of the Chinese areas and cities. They include the resource development mode, comprehensive utilization of resources, energy savings and emission reduction, innovation and digital mining, and enterprise management and corporate image. The authors analyzed: (i) the extension of hesitant fuzzy sets and (ii) the distance measurement metric. The results show that the green mine construction have little impact. Either of the two criteria can be chosen freely by the evaluators. My general impression is very good. It is high quality work - well organized and structured. The literature is up do date.
