Modeling Hydrologic–Economic Interactions for Sustainable Development: A Case Study in Inner Mongolia, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This article focuses on the construction of a network-based hydroeconomic model that integrates hydrological, economic, social, and environmental data in a coherent framework in which the relationship between water resources and economic performance was evaluated under different water saving scenarios and climate change. The authors found that both water-saving policies and increased water availability due to climate change increased economic productivity. In addition, saving water can also mitigate the negative impact of decreased rainfall caused by climate change by restoring gross domestic product since there is a trade-off relationship between economic development and water availability. Finally, the study demonstrated the effect that water resources have on economic growth and the need for better water management in water-deficient regions.
The strengths detected in the article are: a) The hydroeconomic model analyzes the effects of water availability on the economy; most studies are based only on the quantitative or qualitative part of the hydrological cycle and do not relate it to the social part, b) The evaluation under different scenarios, including water conservation and climate change, c) The mathematical approach of the hydroeconomic model because it integrates four sections (hydrological, economic, social, and environmental).
The weakness detected was basically with respect to the reproducibility of the study in other countries, mainly in countries with emerging economies, since in most of these countries there are no databases in quantity and quality to reproduce the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
Thank you very much for the invitation to review this manuscript. The work is relevant, but needs some adjustments.
Below are my observations:
Line 90: What is the working hypothesis?
What news can this study bring to the Chinese community?
Line 124: Follow journal guidelines. The figure caption must be below the image.
Line 147: Join the paragraph with the previous line.
Line 312: Is your Equation 24 correct? I think it should be max(Jfinal) =
And not having the “)” at the end.
Line 425: Are you sure it's “< 0.05%”? Wouldn't it be < 0.05 which is the same as 5%. What is the correct value?
Line 429: Is that right < 1%?
Line 483: In Figure 6, what do the arrows indicate?
Line 490: In Figure 7, what do the arrows indicate?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some adjustments are needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
There is nothing innovative about this article. This type of problem has been studied for many years without any progress. The reviewers recommended rejection of the manuscript.
1. Based on net environment hydroeconomic models are essentially water resource carrying capacity models or system dynamics models. It is another differential name. Such models integrate hydrological, economic, social and environmental data into a net framework, and these models can indicate the relationships between water resources and economic efficiency under different water conservation and climate change scenarios. The disconnect between theory and practical management policies is always a difficulty in studying such issues. When management policies fail to keep up, the research conclusions are meaningless.
2. Hydro-economic models support numerical systems for quantitative scenario analysis and optimization, but the driving data for the models cannot be accurately obtained. The article does not provide a good analysis of the uncertainty of the model and data.
3. The title of Figure 1 is missing. I don’t know what the author wants to express in Figure s.
4. The definition of 250mm=500mm in Figure 2 requires more references.
5. Fig. 3 is too simple and has no logical relationship
6. Equation 1-15 appears in many articles on water resources capacity. Please write down your own definition formula and provide corresponding references for other formulas.
7. How to get the data in Table 1, 2?
8. The conclusion section does not give the author’s dicsovery. This conclusion is known for everyone.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper is original and presents contributions to the research field.
The main question addressed by the research is how to model hydrologic-economic interactions for sustainable development in Inner Mongolia, China, to address the crucial issue of water shortages and their impact on economic development in water-deficient regions.
The authors of the study argue that their research is important because most previous studies on the topic have focused on specific economic sectors or activities, while a macroeconomic perspective is crucial because economic sectors are interdependent and coherent at the macroeconomic level.
The authors of the study acknowledge some limitations of their research, such as the simplifications and assumptions made in the hydro-economic model and suggest that future research could incorporate more detailed data and analysis.
It is suggested that the authors give some potential improvements or justification, such as:
· The limitations of the hydro-economic model used in the study, and how these limitations might affect the accuracy and reliability of the results.
· The assumptions made in the study, and how these assumptions might affect the generalizability of the findings to other regions or contexts.
· The data sources used in the study, and how the precision and accuracy of these data sources might affect the validity of the results.
· The potential biases or confounding factors that might affect the results, and how the study controlled for these factors.
· The implications of the findings for policy and practice, and how these implications might be translated into actionable recommendations for stakeholders.
· The potential limitations of the study's conclusions, and how these limitations might affect the broader implications of the research for the field.
It is suggested that the authors draw up an implications/policy implications section; and future research proposals.
The authors should be more specific about government policies and policies implications at the economic, social, and environmental level.
The authors should include sustainable development goals (SDGs), and should explain the relationship and importance with the theme.
The conclusions of the study are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented; however, the conclusion section lacks a great deal of scientific robustness.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are some instances where the language is repetitive or redundant, which could be streamlined to improve the flow and readability of the text.
There are some minor errors in grammar, punctuation, and syntax, which could be corrected to improve the clarity and accuracy of the text.
The document could benefit from more consistent formatting and style, particularly in terms of headings, subheadings, and citations.
Overall, while there are some areas where the language could be improved, the English in the document is generally acceptable for publication and does not significantly detract from the quality or credibility of the research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
Thank you very much for making a version available with text adjustments. The authors worked hard and I believe that good modifications were added improving the quality of the manuscript. Regardless, there is still one very important observation. Please see the value quoted below:
Line 459: Are you sure the value is < 0.05%?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Observations and adjustments in English are necessary.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your constructive comments. We have revised the article content to make it more coherent and concise. We have also gone through a round of English editing to improve the English quality of the article. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I suggest that the authors:
1. Clarifying the main findings of the study and their implications for future research and policy in a concise and objective manner.
2. Ensuring that the conclusion is based on a thorough analysis of the data and that any limitations or uncertainties are clearly acknowledged.
3. Providing a clear and concise summary of the study's contributions to the field and how it advances our understanding of the topic.
4. Ensuring that the conclusion is consistent with the rest of the manuscript in terms of tone, style, and formatting.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are some instances where the language is repetitive or redundant, which could be streamlined to improve the flow and readability of the text.
There are some minor errors in grammar, punctuation, and syntax, which could be corrected to improve the clarity and accuracy of the text.
The document could benefit from more consistent formatting and style, particularly in terms of headings, subheadings, and citations.
Overall, while there are some areas where the language could be improved, the English in the document is generally acceptable for publication and does not significantly detract from the quality or credibility of the research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your constructive comments. We have revised the article content to make it more coherent and concise. We have also gone through a round of English editing to improve the English quality of the article. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
Thank you very much for the corrected version. I'm satisfied with the adjustments.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I believe just fine adjustments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
