Effect of Weight of Water Resources Carrying Capacity Evaluation Index on Its Evaluation Results in Xinjiang, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current research progresses on the influence of water resources carrying capacity evaluation indicators on the weighting of their evaluation results in Xinjiang, China. Nine evaluation indicators related to the water resources system, social and economic development system, and ecosystem were selected. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP), the coefficient of variation method, the geometric average method, and Murphy’s averaging method are used to calculate the weight of evaluation indexes. Subsequently, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model is used to evaluate the water resources carrying capacity of Xinjiang from 2011 to 2015. The results show that Murphy’s averaging method seems to be the best for Xinjiang in terms of index assignment and evaluation results.
The novelty of this paper is it uses the Murphy’s averaging method, which combines belief functions when evidence conflicts, to improve the shortcomings of single subjective or objective weight values and rankings that are inconsistent with the actual situation.
The paper was well written in English, and the review is sufficient and up to date, the methodology is scientific and effective, the results are reliable, the discussion is thorough and insightful, and the results are straight forward and trustworthy. The opinion of the reviewer is that this manuscript can be accepted for publication after a minor revision.
1 Please provide references for equation (5) and equation (6). More detailed explanations of Geometric average method and Murphy’s averaging method, either in the introduction or in section 2.2 where the two equations are presented, would be appreciated. These will give a rationale of the success of Murphy’s averaging method which seems to be missing in the discussion section.
2 Is there a generalization of the findings in this paper, ie if the Murphy’s averaging method is suitable for estimating the water resources carrying capacity evaluation index in general, or it is only suitable for the estimation in Xinjiang, China. A small paragraph is suggested to be added to discuss the wider applicability of the Murphy’s averaging method by removing the specificity (if there is any) of the situation of water resources carrying capacity in Xinjiang, China.
Author Response
Comment 1
Please provide references for equation (5) and equation (6). More detailed explanations of Geometric average method and Murphy’s averaging method, either in the introduction or in section 2.2 where the two equations are presented, would be appreciated. These will give a rationale of the success of Murphy’s averaging method which seems to be missing in the discussion section.
Response
We thank for the good suggestion. References for equation (5) and equation (6) were added in Lines 172 and 175. And more detailed explanations of Geometric average method and Murphy’s averaging method were added in the introduction section in Lines 79 to 85.
Comment 2
Is there a generalization of the findings in this paper, ie if the Murphy’s averaging method is suitable for estimating the water resources carrying capacity evaluation index in general, or it is only suitable for the estimation in Xinjiang, China. A small paragraph is suggested to be added to discuss the wider applicability of the Murphy’s averaging method by removing the specificity (if there is any) of the situation of water resources carrying capacity in Xinjiang, China.
Response
As Reviewer suggested, we added the wider applicability of the Murphy’s averaging method in Lines 378 to 383.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled “Effect of the weight of water resources carrying capacity evaluation index on its evaluation results in Xinjian, China” was found to be useful in analyzing the indicator-based results to evaluate the influence of the water resources carrying capacity. The authors have pointed out Murphy’s averaging method to be more reasonable in terms of index assignment and evaluation results based on the year 2013, 2014, and 2015. However, some points are missing in the methodological section.
Since 2014 received less amount of rainfall the water resources decreased by 15.23%, while there was a reduced rainfall in 2013 compared to 2015 by 5.7mm. I would like to suggest authors mention the amount of rainfall and water resource % in each year to make it easier to compare with all the study periods.
Additionally, how Murphy’s averaging method can be verified in the real scenario is found less discussed. I suggest the authors add a bit of discussion on why Murphy has better validation and is also better than AHP. Since in general terms AHP also showed less carrying capacity in 2015 than in 2013 if we don’t consider 0.2 as a threshold, please add a discussion compared with AHP and Murphy too.
Also, please check the error on decimals in table 5.
Author Response
Comment 1
Since 2014 received less amount of rainfall the water resources decreased by 15.23%, while there was a reduced rainfall in 2013 compared to 2015 by 5.7mm. I would like to suggest authors mention the amount of rainfall and water resource % in each year to make it easier to compare with all the study periods.
Response
We thank for the good suggestion. The amount of rainfall and the per capita water resources were added in the revised paper in Lines 340 to 342.
Comment 2
Additionally, how Murphy’s averaging method can be verified in the real scenario is found less discussed. I suggest the authors add a bit of discussion on why Murphy has better validation and is also better than AHP. Since in general terms AHP also showed less carrying capacity in 2015 than in 2013 if we don’t consider 0.2 as a threshold, please add a discussion compared with AHP and Murphy too.
Response
As Reviewer suggested, we added the discussion compared with AHP and Murphy in Lines 340 to 351.
Comment 3
Also, please check the error on decimals in table 5.
Response
The decimals in table 5 were checked.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I read your paper and found it interesting. I have the following minor suggestion.
Abstract ln8-9 This sentence is too wordy and needs to be smart. And also grasp the reader's attention.
Ln 65-68, you are reporting the previous studies in a similar style; please try to produce diversity in the writing style.
Ln 105 references are not found, and also many other places too
Ln 194-202 Important information but no reference is provided
No policy implication discussed how these indexes are used for water resources planning and its relevant decision-making.
Author Response
Comment 1
Abstract ln8-9 This sentence is too wordy and needs to be smart. And also grasp the reader's attention.
Response
Sorry for the wordy sentence. It was reorganized in the revised paper.
Comment 2
Ln 65-68, you are reporting the previous studies in a similar style; please try to produce diversity in the writing style.
Response
The sentences in Lines 65-68 were reorganized to produce diversity in the writing style.
Comment 3
Ln 105 references are not found, and also many other places too
Response
We are very sorry for our mistake. The reference sources have been modified in the revised paper.
Comment 4
Ln 194-202 Important information but no reference is provided
Response
The reference [27] was added.
Comment 5
No policy implication discussed how these indexes are used for water resources planning and its relevant decision-making.
Response
The implication of these indexes are illustrated in the last column of Table 1.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is well written and interesting to read, and the research topic is novel, but I see the following issues that should be addressed before publishing this paper:
The study area: It is preferable to have a map that depicts the study area's location in China. To do this, you'll need two maps: one of China (with the study area marked) and another of the study area (showing some necessary details)
Line 178: Error! Reference source not found? Correct the reference
Table 1 Evaluation indexes for water resources carrying capacity. What are the evaluation indexes in this table based on? Please provide a reference (if possible).
Lines 231, 300, and 301: Error! Reference source not found? Correct the reference
Can the authors include a "validation section" that represents the validation of the results of the water resource carrying capacity evaluation method?
Author Response
Comment 1
The study area: It is preferable to have a map that depicts the study area's location in China. To do this, you'll need two maps: one of China (with the study area marked) and another of the study area (showing some necessary details)
Response
We thank for the good suggestion. A map that depicts the study area's location in China was added in Figure 2 in the revised paper.
Comment 2
Line 178: Error! Reference source not found? Correct the reference
Response
We are very sorry for the error. The reference source was modified in Line 184 of the revised paper.
Comment 3
Table 1 Evaluation indexes for water resources carrying capacity. What are the evaluation indexes in this table based on? Please provide a reference (if possible).
Response
As Reviewer suggested, we added a reference of the water resources carrying capacity in Lines 210 to 216.
Comment 4
Lines 231, 300, and 301: Error! Reference source not found? Correct the reference
Response
We are very sorry for the mistake. The reference sources in Lines 231, 300 and 301 refer to Table 2, Figure 1 and Table 5 respectively. And they have been modified.
Comment 5
Can the authors include a "validation section" that represents the validation of the results of the water resource carrying capacity evaluation method?
Response
We thank for the good suggestion. A "validation section" added in the revised paper. And they are in Lines 338 to 350.
