Temporal Variation of Water Environment Carrying Capacity in a Highly Urbanized Region of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- On what basis did the authors adopt the classification (excellent, moderate, medium) in Table 1? - Unify the designations in chapter 2.3.1, 2.3.2 and 2.3.3, - the indicated calculation example because the methodology is not fully transparent,  - The authors proposed a methodology that is generally used in other issues, the method of fuzzy logic of such applications is known, no reference to literature, - It is unacceptable that the results are not being discussed in the light of other authors' research, - a review of the literature requires an in-depth analysis, which the authors need to detail, the models proposed by the authors are many in the literature, they do not necessarily have to cover the same factors, they do not necessarily have to be applied to China,  - which is new and better compared to other work, because there are many models to analyse such a number of factors,    

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.We have revised the manuscript according to your comments.Please refer to below word for the detail.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study investigated the general application of WECC systems and limitations in internal analysis features. Nanjing (China) was selected as the test case. Indicators were classified into three dimensions, including "social", "environmental" and "economic". Entropy weight and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method were applied to evaluate the temporal variation tendency of WECC. Based on the outcomes, this study suggested policies to improve WECC.

Overall, the study is very interesting and applicable in urban communities’ OCP development; however, the authors may need to highlight the research's scientific contributions and innovation as an article.

 

-There is no review from 2018 up to date. If there is no other research in this field, please mention; otherwise, I would recommend investigating the recently published studies in the background section.

-Social, economic and environmental criteria are considered as factors. "Dimension" is not clear from the aspect of the used concept (e.g. dimension increased, decreased, under pressure, etc.). Please clear if the concept refers to any indicator, attribute, criteria, factor, variable etc. The considered criteria represent quantitative values, while the results present numerical values. Please address the issue in the first section mentions the term "Dimension".

- The phrase, "the protection of the water environment protection is becoming increasingly intense", may need revision.

- is the phrase, "This insight into WECC indicators is essential for exploring the impact of socio-economic and environmental policies, and for designing effective future actions." Considered as the contribution of this study?

-The case study is not well explained. (e.g. it is mentioned one of the main reasons for selecting this study is the rate of increase in population), however, there is no information about population and measurement criteria of the rate of increase. The resource of the mentioned statistics in this section may need to be provided.

- Why the information from 2017 to 2020 is not considered in the study?  

- The selection criteria of the indicators in Table 1 are well explained. Have any other studies used these indicators in similar fields? Are there other potential indicators that are not considered in this study? What is the priority of the mentioned indicators in this study compared to other possible indicators that are not presented?

- What are the other dimensions that could be considered in this study? What were the reasons that the authors selected three of them?

-The phrase "real-world problems" in the first paragraph of fuzzy evaluation refers to which problems? The mentioned references are in different aspects. (e.g. 38 refers to teaching evaluation).

- Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation section is explained very well. I would recommend adding the information source for poor, moderate and excellent scales based on index classification in China.

- Eq (13), please provide more details about how the quantitative values of "a" are assigned.  

- The terms "criteria", "dimension" and "factor" are used frequently in the methodology and results section. E.g. dimension refers to 3 of "social", "environmental" and "economical". In the Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation section, it is mentioned 3 criteria. Are "dimensions" and "criteria" referring to the same concept? If yes, please unify the terms in the manuscript. Otherwise, please clarify the referral of "dimension" and "criteria" with further details.

 - What are the other methods in weighting the indicators and/or criteria? Did the authors develop the presented method in this study? What is the advantage of the used method in this study comparing to the literature?

- Please double-check eq (4).

- The phrase "the economic dimension had a much better performance throughout the study period" needs more information. What do the authors mean about "better performance"? How can a dimension have a better performance in this test case? Does a high value of w, for the economic dimension, improve anything regarding the test case?

- Figure (3) is not well presented. Please discuss the line "the higher the comprehensive index, the more beneficial the to sustainable development".

- Figure (3) shows that the economic index passes the grade II line, but not the same in figure (2). What is the reason? Is the scale of the grade level in F2 the same in F3?

- Sections 3.4.1, 3.4.2 and 3.4.3, explain the index values. Does the information refer to the values presented in F4?

- Section 4 provides information about the case study. Some general information is mentioned in lines 53-57. What is the connection between the numerical values in section 3 and the information in section 4? I would suggest moving the information that is not related to the results, to the case study section.

- Section "policy suggestion" is considered as a subsection in the discussion. As mentioned previously, the discussion may focus on connecting the facts and the research outcomes more than providing information about the case study's characteristics. Any improvement suggestion may need either refer to the previously published reports or outcomes of the present study. In general, how do tables 1-3 and the numerical results help authors to provide improvement suggestions?

-Did the authors use any software in their modelling, calculation and analysis process? If the authors develop any codes or software, are they applicable to be employed in other case studies?

-Referring to Table (1), some indicators are correlated and influence each other, while they are classified in different dimensions (e.g. population density, wastewater discharge, energy consumption, water consumption, etc.). Does the proposed assessment method consider these indicators' dynamic behaviour? For example, any change in the mentioned indicators affects other indicators as well. Improvement in one of them may affect others negatively. How does the methodology address the issue and assess the test case to provide an integrated dynamic plan?

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.We have revised the manuscript according to your comments.Please refer to below word for the detail.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors referred to the comments and they were introduced in the manuscript.