Next Article in Journal
Application of the RSPARROW Modeling Tool to Estimate Total Nitrogen Sources to Streams and Evaluate Source Reduction Management Scenarios in the Grande River Basin, Brazil
Previous Article in Journal
Heterogeneous Fenton-Like Catalytic Degradation of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid by Nano-Scale Zero-Valent Iron Assembled on Magnetite Nanoparticles
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Application of an Interval Two-Stage Robust (ITSR) Optimization Model for Optimization of Water Resource Distribution in the Yinma River Basin, Jilin Province, China

Water 2020, 12(10), 2910; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102910
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2020, 12(10), 2910; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102910
Received: 8 September 2020 / Revised: 5 October 2020 / Accepted: 16 October 2020 / Published: 18 October 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript by He et al. titled Application of an Interval Two-stage Robust (ITSR) Optimization Model for Optimization of Water Resource Distribution in the Yinma River Basin, Jilin Province, China’ applies an interval two stage stochastic optimization model to a watershed in China and focus on obtaining a balance between the economic prosperity and environmental risk by changing the intrinsic factors that govern the model design. The distinction in the choice of approaches is identified using a simple non-dimensional metric (0 to 1).

I think the novelty of this article is questionable as it is based on the application of an existing methodology which has been developed and published for the same region. However, the article, which is more like a case study, does contain some interesting solutions for the region and its application can be of broad interest. The authors need to add more discussion highlighting the potential implications. I would also like to see a more practical description of how a balance between economy and the environment is obtained. Please see below for specific comments:

  1. Please provide numbers/range of values for economically centric versus environmentally centric approaches. When is it considered to be in one category or the other? I am not sure if this is already provided in the text, but it is unclear. A mere reduction in the numbers of one over the other does not mean the approach is not viable. Therefore, please provide information about when one approach is considered successful versus the other. After this, highlight the benefits of a balanced approach by presenting optimal statistics.
  2. How does the model account for population growth or migration due to climate/land use change? Simultaneously, the choice of the approach may influence the land use patterns and/or climatic patterns over a substantially long period. Please comment.
  3. How difficult or feasible is the practical application of such a system? What cause of social issues might the adaptation of such a system entail?
  4. The authors suggest that the economic benefits are reduced, especially in the industrial and agricultural sector. Are there specific policy changes that can drive this change? Theoretically, this sounds like the obvious thing to do, but please comment on potential factors that might determine the viability and the potential timeline for this change.
  5. I would like to see a map highlighting the study area/watershed with lat/long. I know this is an extension of a previous study, but this information helps the article to be independent.
  6. Please comment on the spatial transferability of the methodology used here. The approach has been developed and applied to the same area. What are the factors that can influence its performance across other study areas and regions with different physiological characteristics? Also comment on the volumetric scale/population scale of the water distribution system versus other areas that have a highly skewed approach (either environmental or economical) to management of water distributions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The readability of Tables 1 through 5 is too poor.

The tables are not written in an effective way and are too long. The authors should present the calculation results in a more effective and persuasive way.

The authors did not define the variables in the first equation; the definition of d, y, and theta was missing.

The rho of the formula and that of the text look different.

Every vertical axis in the figure shall have a unit.

There are many figures that should be written in exponent; the figure, 104 does not mean 10000.

Although the manuscript has gone through editorial service, it still needs spell-check. For example, in row 115, 'construed' may be the wrong word.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am satisfied by the author's response to the comments identified in the previous version of the manuscript. Although, no additional work has been done since the previous submission, the authors have justified the reasons behind their choice of parameters, spatial transferability, and practical applicability. Therefore, I suggest acceptance of the manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

A section number of 2.2 was duplicated: line numbers 114 and 206.

Back to TopTop