The Impact of Rainfall on Water, Energy, Industry and Economic Growth—Based on Empirical Data from 29 Provinces in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors 

The article follows a valuable idea, but it still needs to undergo major revision. Please consider all the comments below: 

1. While the abstract highlights the selection of water, energy, industry, and economic growth, it doesn't clearly emphasize what makes this study particularly innovative compared to existing research. Highlighting the uniqueness of the proposed model or the new insights offered would strengthen the abstract. The abstract focuses heavily on results related to China but doesn't address how these findings could have implications for urban sustainability efforts in other regions or offer generalizable insights.

2. The introduction covers many concepts, such as urban metabolism, rainfall impacts, climate change, and China's energy-water-industry systems, without smoothly connecting these ideas. This makes the introduction overwhelming and challenging to follow. Although some contributions are mentioned at the end, the introduction does not sufficiently emphasize the novelty or significance of the study early on. Mentioning the unique aspects of the dynamic two-stage network DDF model or how this study addresses gaps in existing research could help capture the reader's attention sooner.

3. The literature review jumps from one study to another without a clear thematic organization. It would be more effective if it grouped similar studies together (e.g., studies on energy, water, and subsystems) and followed a logical progression to highlight gaps in the existing literature. The review mentions several studies but does not provide enough critical evaluation of them. It would benefit from a more detailed critique of the studies' methodologies, limitations, and findings to show how they contribute to or fall short of addressing the research problem. Some parts of the review, particularly the discussion of general urban sustainability concepts and the challenges posed by subsystems, are presented broadly and vaguely. More specific examples of how these concepts are operationalized in the research could strengthen the review. Most of the cited research is descriptive, focusing on measuring or evaluating sustainability aspects without offering much in terms of innovative solutions or methodological advancements. Discussing studies that propose novel frameworks or methods could provide a more balanced view of the field. The literature review briefly touches on trade-offs between subsystems (e.g., water-energy-industry), but it doesn't explore this issue in depth. A more detailed discussion of how existing research addresses these trade-offs and the challenges associated with balancing them would improve the review.

4. The methodology section: The standardization process (Step 1) relies heavily on the minimum and maximum values of the data. Outliers or extreme values can significantly skew the results, leading to potential distortions in the analysis. While entropy can objectively assign weights based on data variability, the initial selection of inputs, outputs, and undesirable variables remains subjective. This choice may affect the outcome and the perceived importance of various factors. By incorporating many variables, subsystems, and links (water, energy, economic growth) over time, the model might risk overfitting, particularly when applied to a relatively small number of decision-making units (DMUs), such as the 29 provinces in the case study. The meta-frontier assumption implies homogeneity across different decision-making units, which might not accurately reflect the true heterogeneity in resource availability, management practices, or regulatory frameworks in different regions. The need to compute weights, efficiencies, and objective functions for multiple subsystems across stages introduces a significant computational burden, especially in large-scale applications or with frequent updates.

5. The methodology might not adequately address other important performance dimensions, such as effectiveness, equity, or sustainability, which are increasingly important in modern decision-making contexts. The definitions of coupling and efficiency used in the analysis could benefit from clearer operational definitions to avoid ambiguity and ensure consistent stakeholder interpretation. While it mentions the provinces and their efficiency levels, it does not provide sufficient context or background on the specific challenges faced by each province, which may limit the reader's understanding of why certain trends are observed. The section predominantly highlights low efficiency and negative growth, which may create a pessimistic view of the overall situation. Discussing any positive developments or improvements could provide a more balanced perspective. The analysis primarily addresses individual subsystem efficiencies without thoroughly exploring the interconnections and interactions between subsystems, which could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the overall system dynamics. While the TGR provides insights into technology gaps across provinces, the findings may not account for specific regional differences and local contexts that could influence technological adoption and efficiency levels. Therefore, general conclusions drawn from these metrics might overlook crucial local factors. The analysis incorporates rainfall as an exogenous variable. However, there may be other significant factors influencing efficiency that were not included in the model, such as socioeconomic conditions, technological infrastructure, or policy frameworks. This exclusion could result in an incomplete understanding of the factors impacting efficiency. The analysis focuses on a specific time frame (2018-2020). Changes in technology and efficiency might not be fully captured in this short period, particularly in rapidly evolving sectors. This temporal limitation could lead to misleading conclusions regarding trends or future predictions. The TGR analysis primarily focuses on technical efficiency without adequately considering non-technical factors, such as political, social, or cultural influences, that can significantly affect a province's performance and technology adoption. Focusing solely on efficiency may overlook other important dimensions of sustainability and urban development, such as equity, social impact, or environmental sustainability. This could limit the applicability of the findings in broader policy-making contexts. 

6. The findings may not be generalizable to other regions or countries, as the coupling dynamics could vary based on geographic, cultural, and economic differences. The focus on specific provinces may limit the applicability of the conclusions to broader contexts. While high coupling degrees may indicate strong interactions, the analysis does not explore whether high coupling is always beneficial. In some cases, it could lead to vulnerabilities or a lack of resilience if one subsystem's failure significantly impacts the others. The analysis may overlook external factors that influence the subsystems, such as climate change, global market trends, or technological advancements, which could affect the coupling dynamics and sustainability outcomes. 

7. While the conclusion summarizes various findings, it may lack sufficient empirical evidence to substantiate some claims, particularly regarding the relationships between efficiency levels and economic growth. This could weaken the conclusions drawn from the data. The conclusions about regional efficiency and coupling may be overly generalized. Differences among provinces can be significant, and a more nuanced analysis could provide a clearer picture of regional dynamics. The conclusion suggests direct causal relationships between efficiency improvements and economic growth or resource utilization without addressing potential confounding variables that could also influence these outcomes. While the technology gap ratio is mentioned, the implications of its findings are not thoroughly explored. A deeper analysis of how this gap impacts regional development and efficiency could provide more valuable insights. The conclusion notes the existence of provinces with high efficiency but negative growth, but it does not sufficiently analyze the causes or implications of this phenomenon. Understanding why high efficiency does not correlate with growth is crucial for policymakers.

Author Response

Response to the comments point-to-point

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Editor and anonymous referees for their insightful and constructive comments, which have greatly helped us improve the manuscript. We have responded to all the comments raised by the referees during the review. Furthermore, following their suggestions, we have carefully revised the manuscript. In the process, we believe the paper has been significantly improved. Our point-to-point response to reviewers is presented below in blue font.

Review #1：

1. While the abstract highlights the selection of water, energy, industry, and economic growth, it doesn't clearly emphasize what makes this study particularly innovative compared to existing research. Highlighting the uniqueness of the proposed model or the new insights offered would strengthen the abstract. The abstract focuses heavily on results related to China but doesn't address how these findings could have implications for urban sustainability efforts in other regions or offer generalizable insights.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript.

First, we added the possible innovations of this paper in the abstract (lines 14-27 in red).

Second, we added the possible relevance of this study for other regions (lines 27-30 in red).

2. The introduction covers many concepts, such as urban metabolism, rainfall impacts, climate change, and China's energy-water-industry systems, without smoothly connecting these ideas. This makes the introduction overwhelming and challenging to follow. Although some contributions are mentioned at the end, the introduction does not sufficiently emphasize the novelty or significance of the study early on. Mentioning the unique aspects of the dynamic two-stage network DDF model or how this study addresses gaps in existing research could help capture the reader's attention sooner.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript.

First, we have abridged and organized such concepts and elaborated on the connections between them to help readers better understand (lines 35-97 in red).

Second, we have supplemented the modeling on innovative models with hydromineralization (lines 109-117 in red).

3. The literature review jumps from one study to another without a clear thematic organization. It would be more effective if it grouped similar studies together (e.g., studies on energy, water, and subsystems) and followed a logical progression to highlight gaps in the existing literature. The review mentions several studies but does not provide enough critical evaluation of them. It would benefit from a more detailed critique of the studies' methodologies, limitations, and findings to show how they contribute to or fall short of addressing the research problem. Some parts of the review, particularly the discussion of general urban sustainability concepts and the challenges posed by subsystems, are presented broadly and vaguely. More specific examples of how these concepts are operationalized in the research could strengthen the review. Most of the cited research is descriptive, focusing on measuring or evaluating sustainability aspects without offering much in terms of innovative solutions or methodological advancements. Discussing studies that propose novel frameworks or methods could provide a more balanced view of the field. The literature review briefly touches on trade-offs between subsystems (e.g., water-energy-industry), but it doesn't explore this issue in depth. A more detailed discussion of how existing research addresses these trade-offs and the challenges associated with balancing them would improve the review.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript.

First, we reorganized the literature review by dividing similar studies into one paragraph and explained the limitations of the existing literature (Lines 118-207 in red).

Second, we added conceptualizations of sustainable urban development (Lines 119-134 in red).

Third, we added to the literature related to new frameworks or approaches to improve urban sustainability (Lines 164-195 in red).

4. The methodology section: The standardization process (Step 1) relies heavily on the minimum and maximum values of the data. Outliers or extreme values can significantly skew the results, leading to potential distortions in the analysis. While entropy can objectively assign weights based on data variability, the initial selection of inputs, outputs, and undesirable variables remains subjective. This choice may affect the outcome and the perceived importance of various factors. By incorporating many variables, subsystems, and links (water, energy, economic growth) over time, the model might risk overfitting, particularly when applied to a relatively small number of decision-making units (DMUs), such as the 29 provinces in the case study. The meta-frontier assumption implies homogeneity across different decision-making units, which might not accurately reflect the true heterogeneity in resource availability, management practices, or regulatory frameworks in different regions. The need to compute weights, efficiencies, and objective functions for multiple subsystems across stages introduces a significant computational burden, especially in large-scale applications or with frequent updates.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript.

First, the focus of this paper is on the gaps between individual dmu data, and the main purpose of the standardization process is to harmonize data outlines. However, we will pay attention to this issue in later studies.

Second, in order to minimize the subjectivity of indicator selection, we mainly select indicators based on the specific objectives of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), relevant literature, and data availability. We provide additional explanations for data selection in the article(Lines 317-321,332 in red).

Third, in general, the DEA method does not lead to overfitting problems, but a small number of DMUs may affect the stability and reliability of the analysis (e.g., most of the efficiency values are 1). Therefore, the number of DMUs subject to assessment generally needs to be twice or more than twice the sum of the input and output terms. In this paper, the number of input and output terms is 18, while the number of DMUs is 87 (3-year data for 29 provinces), which is much larger than twice the number of input and output terms.

Fourth, The meta-frontier is a production function frontier improved on the basis of DEA (data envelopment analysis), which is used to measure the input and output efficiency of high-quality development of DMU (decision-making units) of different technological levels in the common frontier, and it is applicable to the evaluation of the situation where the technological level of the target differs greatly. This paper measures the technical efficiency under the common frontier in order to reflect the overall technical level and development potential more comprehensively.

5. The methodology might not adequately address other important performance dimensions, such as effectiveness, equity, or sustainability, which are increasingly important in modern decision-making contexts. The definitions of coupling and efficiency used in the analysis could benefit from clearer operational definitions to avoid ambiguity and ensure consistent stakeholder interpretation. While it mentions the provinces and their efficiency levels, it does not provide sufficient context or background on the specific challenges faced by each province, which may limit the reader's understanding of why certain trends are observed. The section predominantly highlights low efficiency and negative growth, which may create a pessimistic view of the overall situation. Discussing any positive developments or improvements could provide a more balanced perspective. The analysis primarily addresses individual subsystem efficiencies without thoroughly exploring the interconnections and interactions between subsystems, which could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the overall system dynamics. While the TGR provides insights into technology gaps across provinces, the findings may not account for specific regional differences and local contexts that could influence technological adoption and efficiency levels. Therefore, general conclusions drawn from these metrics might overlook crucial local factors. The analysis incorporates rainfall as an exogenous variable. However, there may be other significant factors influencing efficiency that were not included in the model, such as socioeconomic conditions, technological infrastructure, or policy frameworks. This exclusion could result in an incomplete understanding of the factors impacting efficiency. The analysis focuses on a specific time frame (2018-2020). Changes in technology and efficiency might not be fully captured in this short period, particularly in rapidly evolving sectors. This temporal limitation could lead to misleading conclusions regarding trends or future predictions. The TGR analysis primarily focuses on technical efficiency without adequately considering non-technical factors, such as political, social, or cultural influences, that can significantly affect a province's performance and technology adoption. Focusing solely on efficiency may overlook other important dimensions of sustainability and urban development, such as equity, social impact, or environmental sustainability. This could limit the applicability of the findings in broader policy-making contexts. 

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript.

First, we have taken validity, equity and sustainability into account when designing the research framework and selecting indicators. For example, investment in energy industry governance (wastewater, waste, waste), output indicators for the energy sustainable stage, and economic and environmental input indicators, etc. Due to the long name and large number of indicators, they are not listed here, see Figure 1 (Line 331).

Second, we add the definitions of efficiency and coupling to avoid ambiguity (Lines 393-397,548-562 in red).

Third, we add the basis of cluster division to facilitate readers' understanding (Lines 306-324 in red).

Fourth, we added the analysis of the reasons for efficient provinces and regions (Lines 491-522 in red).

Fifth, the coupling coordination analysis (4.4) in the text allows us to explore the extent to which the subsystems are interconnected (Lines 548-589 in red).

Sixth, we re-examined the TGR analysis section and concluded that it does have a focus on examining technological efficiency, whereas the timeframe of the study in this paper is shorter, and technological advances are more difficult to reflect. On the other hand, the focus of this paper is to examine the level of efficiency of the total urban water-energy-industry and economic growth system, the extent to which the subsystems contribute to the efficiency of the total system, as well as the degree of interaction between the systems, and a further TGR analysis may result in an unfocused article. As a result, the TGR section is deleted from this paper.

Seventh, the indicators used at each stage of each system would include indicators that can examine the socio-economic conditions, technological infrastructure, or policy framework, such as the number of employed people, GDP, government investment, and other indicators. Differences in such indicators between provinces and cities will affect their efficiency scores and ultimately the conclusions of the study.

6. The findings may not be generalizable to other regions or countries, as the coupling dynamics could vary based on geographic, cultural, and economic differences. The focus on specific provinces may limit the applicability of the conclusions to broader contexts. While high coupling degrees may indicate strong interactions, the analysis does not explore whether high coupling is always beneficial. In some cases, it could lead to vulnerabilities or a lack of resilience if one subsystem's failure significantly impacts the others. The analysis may overlook external factors that influence the subsystems, such as climate change, global market trends, or technological advancements, which could affect the coupling dynamics and sustainability outcomes. 

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript.

First, we recognize that our findings may not be fully applicable to other regions due to the diversity of geographic, cultural and economic factors. We agree that generalizability is a major challenge in research, but we believe that this study provides valuable insights for regions with more similar locational environments to Chinese provinces and cities. In later studies, we will further overcome these limitations.

Second, We examined the coupling analysis section and the coupling degree did have the above limitations, so we used the coupling coordination degree model. The coupling coordination degree examines both the degree of association among systems and the degree of collaboration. To make the article more logical, we adjusted this section to 4.4(Lines 548-589 in red).

Third, considering the role of such external factors, this paper adds rainfall as an exogenous variable in the model. Variation in rainfall is one of the important manifestations of climate change, which will affect the water subsystem, the energy subsystem, and the industry and economic growth subsystems, respectively, and lead to changes in the efficiency values.This effect is specifically analyzed in section 4.5 (Lines 590-658).

7. While the conclusion summarizes various findings, it may lack sufficient empirical evidence to substantiate some claims, particularly regarding the relationships between efficiency levels and economic growth. This could weaken the conclusions drawn from the data. The conclusions about regional efficiency and coupling may be overly generalized. Differences among provinces can be significant, and a more nuanced analysis could provide a clearer picture of regional dynamics. The conclusion suggests direct causal relationships between efficiency improvements and economic growth or resource utilization without addressing potential confounding variables that could also influence these outcomes. While the technology gap ratio is mentioned, the implications of its findings are not thoroughly explored. A deeper analysis of how this gap impacts regional development and efficiency could provide more valuable insights. The conclusion notes the existence of provinces with high efficiency but negative growth, but it does not sufficiently analyze the causes or implications of this phenomenon. Understanding why high efficiency does not correlate with growth is crucial for policymakers.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript.

First, our paper does not address the relationship between efficiency levels and economic growth. In this paper, we analyze the total efficiency of the 29 provinces from two perspectives: the total efficiency value and the growth in the total efficiency value (total efficiency refers to the total efficiency level of the “water-energy-industry and economic growth system”). Total Efficiency measures the overall level of efficiency in the province from 2018-2020, while total efficiency growth measures the trend in the province's total efficiency from 2018-2020, which is the percentage change in the province's efficiency in 2020 compared to its efficiency in 2018. As a result, except for provinces with efficiency of 1 and increase of 0, all remaining provinces can be categorized into 4 groups (high efficiency-positive growth, low efficiency-positive growth, low efficiency-negative growth, and high efficiency-negative growth), and if a province has a “high efficiency-positive gowth”, it means that the province not only has a high level of efficiency, but also maintains the trend of growth. To avoid ambiguity, we have also added a note in 4.2.1 (Lines 393-409 in red).

Second, we add an analysis of the causes of the regional efficiency and coupling components (Lines 473-522, 548-589 in red).

Third, we do mention in our analysis in 4.3.1 that the level of efficiency may be influenced by the level of the economy and the level of resource utilization. This is because the focus of this paper is to analyze the level and trend of efficiency across provinces and to analyze the possible causes of this phenomenon. However, the “potential confounding variables” that contribute to this phenomenon are not the focus of this paper. We will consider further research on it later.

Fourth, as mentioned earlier, we have deleted the part of TGR analysis in this paper to avoid ambiguity.

Fifth, we add the explanation of the reason for the phenomenon of high efficiency but negative growth(Lines 435-449 in red).

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Finding optimal trajectories and building models of sustainable development of territories is an actual and relevant to the field research task. However, the submitted manuscript requires revision both in terms of design and the body of knowledge. I can suggest the following areas for improving and detailing the material.

The introduction, literature review, and reference sections are practically not represented by works from 2024 and early access. I propose to correct this by discussing in a few sentences aspects of cybersecurity and neural network models of data processing, supplementing the above sections based on:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11416-024-00529-x

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11416-023-00500-2

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11416-023-00499-6

The workflow taxonomy of the MS should be substantiated in more detail, it is desirable to provide alternative options, drawing attention to the advantages and disadvantages of comparative analysis. Figure 1 is almost illegible.

The manuscript lacks the data availability statement, which makes it impossible to verify the computational experiments.

The conclusions section looks a bit simple, which significantly reduces the practical value of the interesting results obtained.

Unfortunately, there are many typos in the submitted manuscript. For example, the authors' names of the cited literature are written with a lowercase letter, lines 145, 147... different fonts and line spacing, lines 532-536, 523-521, 324-328... duplicated figure titles, lines 328, 363... broken links, lines 312, 304...

This does not make the best impression from reading and I hope it will be corrected in the revised version.

Author Response

Response to the comments point-to-point

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Editor and anonymous referees for their insightful and constructive comments, which have greatly helped us improve the manuscript. We have responded to all the comments raised by the referees during the review. Furthermore, following their suggestions, we have carefully revised the manuscript. In the process, we believe the paper has been significantly improved. Our point-to-point response to reviewers is presented below in blue font.

 

Review #2：

1.Finding optimal trajectories and building models of sustainable development of territories is an actual and relevant to the field research task. However, the submitted manuscript requires revision both in terms of design and the body of knowledge. I can suggest the following areas for improving and detailing the material. The introduction, literature review, and reference sections are practically not represented by works from 2024 and early access. I propose to correct this by discussing in a few sentences aspects of cybersecurity and neural network models of data processing, supplementing the above sections based on:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11416-024-00529-x

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11416-023-00500-2

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11416-023-00499-6

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. We carefully read the recommended articles but did not add them to the article at this time due to their low relevance to this study.

2. The workflow taxonomy of the MS should be substantiated in more detail, it is desirable to provide alternative options, drawing attention to the advantages and disadvantages of comparative analysis. Figure 1 is almost illegible.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. We replaced the clearer image (Line 331)。

3.The manuscript lacks the data availability statement, which makes it impossible to verify the computational experiments.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. The data of the manuscript are from the public database, and the sources of the original data marked in are China Population and Employment Statistical Yearbook, China Statistical Yearbook, and China Environmental Statistical Yearbook , etc.(Line321-327), which can be easily obtained by the public.

4.The conclusions section looks a bit simple, which significantly reduces the practical value of the interesting results obtained.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. We revised the conclusion section to make it more informative and interesting(Lines 659-689 in red).

5.Unfortunately, there are many typos in the submitted manuscript. For example, the authors' names of the cited literature are written with a lowercase letter, lines 145, 147... different fonts and line spacing, lines 532-536, 523-521, 324-328... duplicated figure titles, lines 328, 363... broken links, lines 312, 304...This does not make the best impression from reading and I hope it will be corrected in the revised version.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. We corrected typos and writing errors that existed in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It is strongly recommended that the authors use LaTeX to modify their manuscript, as the format of the tables looks weird; for example, Table 2.

2. 'Error! Reference source not found.' on page 10.

3. 'Adopting the four-quadrant analysis and taking the median as the division criterion, 325 the total efficiency and the increase in total efficiency of the 29 provinces are distributed 326 in different four quadrants, and the specific distribution is shown in', the formatting of this paragraph is incorrect. Also, check page 18 for the same issue.

4. Figure 3 looks quite unprofessional.

5. On page 15, one of the paragraphs ends with two periods.

6. In general, the manuscript seems to have been completed in a hurry, and the level of innovation is low.

Author Response

Response to the comments point-to-point

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Editor and anonymous referees for their insightful and constructive comments, which have greatly helped us improve the manuscript. We have responded to all the comments raised by the referees during the review. Furthermore, following their suggestions, we have carefully revised the manuscript. In the process, we believe the paper has been significantly improved. Our point-to-point response to reviewers is presented below in blue font.

 

Review #3：

1. It is strongly recommended that the authors use LaTeX to modify their manuscript, as the format of the tables looks weird; for example, Table 2.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. We have made adjustments to the original table, and due to changes in the overall article, the original Table 2 has been changed to Table 3(Line 334 in red).

2. 'Error! Reference source not found.' on page 10.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. We made adjustments to page10.

3. 'Adopting the four-quadrant analysis and taking the median as the division criterion, 325 the total efficiency and the increase in total efficiency of the 29 provinces are distributed 326 in different four quadrants, and the specific distribution is shown in', the formatting of this paragraph is incorrect. Also, check page 18 for the same issue.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. We have modified this sentence and page18 (Lines 397-407 in red).

4. Figure 3 looks quite unprofessional.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. We adjusted Figure3 (Line 471 in red).

5. On page 15, one of the paragraphs ends with two periods.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. We deleted the extra period.

6. In general, the manuscript seems to have been completed in a hurry, and the level of innovation is low.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. We have revised the article based on the comments of the reviewers.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1)   The sustainable development of cities affects the dynamism of a country's economic growth, and evaluating the metabolic efficiency of cities is an important framework for studying their sustainable development. In this study, water, energy, industry and economic growth as affected by rainfall were investigated based on empirical data from 29 provinces in China.

(2)   Overall, the organization and structure of the manuscript are logical and the topic of this manuscript is of good significance and worthy of publication. However, the following issues are required to be addressed to improve the manuscript.

(3)   Lines 71-116: many statements and data should be supported by some citations, please add necessary references to improve these opinions and data statements.

(4)   Section 2: This part should be included into the Section 1 Introduction, please revise it.

(5)   Lines 145-147: The last names the authors should be carefully checked and revised; e.g., “chen et al. [17]” should be “Chen et al. [17]”; “LIN et al. [19]” should be “Lin et al. [19]”; “shao et al. [20]” should be “Shao et al. [20]”. Please also revise these at other statements of this manuscript.

(6)   Lines 162-168: The references with three authors or more authors should be cited by the last name followed by “et al.”. Please carefully checked and revise them.

(7)   Figure 3: The symbols in the figure (e.g., S1 and S2) should be explained at the end of the title as a note as the figure should be readable without referring to the main text. Please also revise other figures with similar issues.

Author Response

Response to the comments point-to-point

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Editor and anonymous referees for their insightful and constructive comments, which have greatly helped us improve the manuscript. We have responded to all the comments raised by the referees during the review. Furthermore, following their suggestions, we have carefully revised the manuscript. In the process, we believe the paper has been significantly improved. Our point-to-point response to reviewers is presented below in blue font.

Review #4:

1.Lines 71-116: many statements and data should be supported by some citations, please add necessary references to improve these opinions and data statements.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. We have added references (Lines 792-809 in red).

2.Section 2: This part should be included into the Section 1 Introduction, please revise it.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. Due to the length of the literature review, we thought it would be easier to read by separating it from the introduction. In future studies, we will consider this writing style.

3.Lines 145-147: The last names the authors should be carefully checked and revised; e.g., “chen et al. [17]” should be “Chen et al. [17]”; “LIN et al. [19]” should be “Lin et al. [19]”; “shao et al. [20]” should be “Shao et al. [20]”. Please also revise these at other statements of this manuscript.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. We have made changes.

4.Lines 162-168: The references with three authors or more authors should be cited by the last name followed by “et al.”. Please carefully checked and revise them.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. We have made changes.

5.Figure 3: The symbols in the figure (e.g., S1 and S2) should be explained at the end of the title as a note as the figure should be readable without referring to the main text. Please also revise other figures with similar issues.

Reply: We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript. We have added an abbreviation-full name cross-reference table at the end of the article (Table 8)。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors 

The article looks much better in its revised form. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The corrections have increased the description but have not offered empirical evidence to support the effectiveness and innovation of the MS and its potential impact in the field.

The authors have not adequately addressed all my suggestions, the manuscript still lacks sufficient scientific novelty, a coherent methodology and convincing computational experiments; the practical value of the study remains unclear.

The additional revisions and explanations provided have undoubtedly been necessary but not sufficient to be published despite the modifications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my concerns have been addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented text extensions do not allow changing the overall study assessment.

Author Response

Response to the comments point-to-point

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Editor and anonymous referees for their insightful and constructive comments, which have greatly helped us improve the manuscript. We have responded to all the comments raised by the referees during the review. Furthermore, following their suggestions, we have carefully revised the manuscript. In the process, we believe the paper has been significantly improved. Our point-to-point response to reviewers is presented below in blue font.

 

1.Clarity and Language Improvements: While the overall structure and content of the manuscript have improved significantly, a final round of language editing is recommended to enhance readability and clarity for a global audience.

Reply：We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript.As you suggested, we have promptly initiated the last round of language checking and editing. Additionally, we have employed professional software to assist in identifying semantically ambiguous parts, striving to make the language more standardized and fluent.

 

2.Integration of Reviewer Comments: It is noted that you have addressed most of the reviewers’ major concerns. However, please ensure that all specific points regarding updated references and methodological clarity are fully addressed in your final submission.

Reply：We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript.We have made further modifications, and all the specific issues regarding the update of references and the clarity of methods have been fully addressed in the final submitted paper.

3.Figures and Tables: Ensure that all figures and tables are formatted according to the journal’s submission guidelines and captions are concise yet informative.

Reply：We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript.We have conducted a meticulous inspection of all the figures and tables according to the requirements to ensure that the formats are error-free.

4.Consistency in Terminology: Please review the manuscript for consistent use of key terms related to sustainability and resource management to avoid any confusion.

Reply：We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript.We have meticulously examined all the key terms to ensure the consistent use of those related to sustainable development and resource management.

5. Addressing Scientific Novelty and Methodology:

One of the reviewers has raised a concern that the manuscript still lacks sufficient scientific novelty, a coherent methodology, and convincing computational experiments. Additionally, the practical value of the study remains unclear. Please provide a detailed explanation in your revised manuscript to address these points:

 

1） Highlight how your study provides a novel contribution to the existing body of knowledge in this field.

Reply：We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript.We have reorganized the marginal contributions of this article, consolidated its content and highlighted its value.(see lines 101-121 in green in the main text for details)

2）Ensure that the methodology is clearly articulated, logically coherent, and well-integrated with the research objectives.

Reply：We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript.Through repeated revisions and meticulous sorting, we solemnly confirm that the methods adopted in this study are well-structured, possess internal logic, and serve the research objectives.

 

3）Elaborate on the practical implications of your study, clearly explaining its relevance and potential applications in practice.

Reply：We greatly appreciate for your valuable comments as well as giving us the precious opportunity to revise the manuscript.We have added a section at the end of the article to sort out the practical significance of the research and explain its potential applications in practice.(see lines 643-653 in green in the main text for details)