Study on the Evolution of Risk Contagion in Urban River Ecological Management Projects Based on SEIRS

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

I acknowledge that in this new version, the manuscript has been modified. The structure has been improved, which clarifies the message. The authors also have responded to all the comments from the last review. A considerable part of these answers brings improvements to the manuscript. However, I must say that some of the answers appear not to be entirely reflected in the new version of the manuscript and a few comments are only partially addressed, which overshadows the other modifications.

One of the main concerns raised in the first review of the manuscript concerning the very limited discussions of the results has not been taken into account and issues in the structure of the paper have not been properly addressed. The paper still does not discuss the uncertainty of input data and setting parameters. It has certain randomness, and there is always an inevitable forecast deviation. Please discuss the uncertainties and I recommend performing the sensitivity analysis to assess the relative importance of the input variables. Moreover, Gap analysis needs to be made in relation to the study area but state if there is any limitation for the modelling strategy in applying to any other study area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The current manuscript entitled “Study on the evolution of risk contagion in urban river ecological management projects based on SEIRS” by Xu et al. deals with the risk transmission mechanism of urban river ecological management engineering projects. The authors tried to focus on the dynamics of risk contagion in urban river ecological management projects using the SEIRS (Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered-Susceptible) model. While the topic is relevant and the methodology seems promising, several minor concerns need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Major numerical findings are missing from the abstract.

At first mention, the full name of SEIRS should be written.

The structure and organization of the introduction are generally satisfactory. The introduction provides a clear background and rationale for the study, and the objectives and research questions are explicitly stated. However, this section is too lengthy and contains several unnecessary studies which can be removed.

A flow chart depicting the overall layout of the study should be given.

The interpretation and discussion of the results lack depth and critical analysis. The authors should contextualize their findings within the broader literature on risk contagion and urban river management.

Conclusion:

Again, this section is too lengthy. Please rewrite it with more focus on the overall outcome of your study, followed by limitations, and suggestions for future studies.

References: Fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript presents a clear methodology for carrying out the proposed investigations, suitable for achieving the objectives of the work.. Excellent revisión of the state of the art (SoA) to frame that this paper is out of the SoA. A minor revisión is suggested concerning to infection rate effects on steady-state density mainly the figure 10. Steady-state density of infected and latent nodes with h2 for ℎ1 = 0.01. (a) The law of steady-state density of infected nodes changing with ℎ2; (b) The law of steady-state density of Latent Nodes changing with ℎ2 and the figure 11. Steady-state density of infected and latent nodes with h1 for h2=0.03. (a) The law of steady- state density of infected nodes changing with ℎ1; (b) The law of steady-state density of Latent Nodes changing with ℎ1. 50, both figures are partially discussed to undestand the achieved results.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The present paper aims to investigate the risk transmission mechanism of urban river ecological management engineering projects. Based on the SEIRS model. The subject is important and relevant to the Water Journal. However, I have some concerns about the method and some comments about the results and discussion. The quality of the manuscript however should be improved significantly before the re-submission. please find below my comments.

 

 

1.    What I am most concerned about the manuscript is its novelty. I recommend the authors to fully stress what is new in the study (compared with previous works) and what new knowledge we can learn from their results.

 

2.    The manuscript is missed one essential point about Model Parametrization and Calibration. I would like to have a view of the model performance through available validation

 

3.    The uncertainty of input data and setting parameters has certain randomness, and there is always an inevitable forecast deviation. Please discuss the uncertainties and I recommend performing the sensitivity analysis to assess the relative importance of the input variables.

 

4.    I see a lot of equations used for the risk contagion delay model for urban river ecological management projects, but are they part of the SEIRS model? Or were they invented by the authors? If all part of the SEIRS model, I suggest putting all basic SEIRS information in an Appendix.

 

5.      The manuscript tends to be elaborative and make a meal of the subject matter (this is true in Introduction, Data, Methodology strategy and the presentation of the results). Often, there is no structure in the arguments. I hasten to add that I am  complaining about  absence of structure and communication style, as a result of which it is easy to be bogged down most of the time. I would strongly recommend that the authors communicate the subject matter. For instance, consider the results. I would be keen to see that (i) the authors identify the structure in the figures and tables in the results section and marshal them in a logical succession; (ii) state each figure/table in a sentence or two; (iii) state clear information outright as a message, as deduced from the figure/table; and (iii) if necessary, qualify the main message. In this way the results will become more understandable. The Introduction section is related to what other people have done, whereas it should explain the authors' work in the context of the state-of-the-art.

 

6.    There is no conclusion made about results or learning from the presented study, thus, the authors should add the conclusions section. The authors could have made a better effort to explain what is better understood in the case they presented. It will be better to separate the conclusion section from the discussion section

 

7.    Gap analysis needs to be made in relation to the study area but state if there is any limitation for the modelling strategy in applying to any other study area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

thank you for having replied to my remarks