Next Article in Journal
Water Sensitive Planning for the Cities in the Global South
Previous Article in Journal
Ecological and Human Health Risks of Metal–PAH Combined Pollution in Riverine and Coastal Soils of Southern Russia
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Analysis of Water Resource Carrying Capacity and Obstacle Factors Based on GRA-TOPSIS Evaluation Method in Manas River Basin

Water 2023, 15(2), 236; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15020236
Reviewer 1: Dominika Dąbrowska
Reviewer 2: Xueting Zeng
Water 2023, 15(2), 236; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15020236
Received: 18 November 2022 / Revised: 20 December 2022 / Accepted: 29 December 2022 / Published: 5 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Water Resources Management, Policy and Governance)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper's main aim is to present the results of the analysis of the main factors affecting the water resources carrying capacity. The authors have used  21 indicators from three subsystems based on the theory of water resources-economic society ecological complex system. The aim of the study was achieved in the paper. Overall paper sounds good but a few aspects should be improved. Please add the novelty of the study to the abstract part. The introduction part is well written but should involve more examples of similar methods used. All figures should be bigger and in a better resolution. Please add information about the geological and hydrogeological conditions of the study area. The methodology was well described. Please extend the discussion section. The conclusions section is well prepared. The references list should be improved and extended via new papers. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reference Number: water-2073934

Review of “The Analyse of Water Resources Carrying Capacity and Obstacle Factors Based on GRA-TOPSIS Method Evaluation in Manas River Basin

 

 

There are some comments for authors to improve the quality of manuscript as follows:

 

(1) In Abstract section, the authors have displayed Irrigation coverage rate, the proportion of agricultural water, Water consumption per 10,000 yuan GDP, the modulus of water production, Mater resources development and utilization ratio, Mater supply modulus, and the proportion of ecological water were the seven main significant obstacles. what are Mater resources development and Mater supply modulus mean?

 

(2) The Abstract should be refined, which should excavate results and discoveries in a clear manner. Meanwhile, the novelty of paper should be added.

 

(3) The literature review is not comprehensive and detailed. Please add some more detailed previous studies to support your developed model. There are many good studies in the related fields, but which have their shortcomings. Please enhance your novelty of developed method. Meanwhile, please update the reference list including the most recent and relevant references. Some useful references are supplied as follows: (a) Development of a maximum entropy-Archimedean copula-based Bayesian network method for streamflow frequency analysis – a case study of Kaidu River Basin, China. (b) A hybrid land-water-environment model for identification of ecological effect and risk under uncertain meteorological precipitation in an agroforestry ecosystem. (c) Planning a sustainable regional irrigated production and forest protection under water / land resource stress with multiple uncertainties. (d) Identification of policies based on asessment-optimzation model to confront vulnerablity of resources system in a big city with large population scale.

 

(4) Why did the authors develop this model? What practical problems can this model deal with? and how did the authors choose various indexs? All above issues should be added?

 

(5) Please add a general framework to rationalize the idea of this paper. Meanwhile, please add the whole index system framework before your asessment, and how to construct your assessment system.

 

(5) Why did the authors use three methods to identify the weight of assessment system? How are they advantage respectively?

 

(6) Figure 3 is too small to see it clearly, which should be revised in a clear manner.

 

(7) The practical reasons of assessment results are not expressed in a clear manner, which should be fortified in Result section.

 

 

(8) The language of the paper needs improvement. For example: there are very long sentences in the manuscript that need to be revised. Meanwhile, some of the sentences also have structural issue. Moreover, numbers of grammatical errors exist in the manuscript that needs to be corrected.

 

(9) The Conclusion section should be revised to highlight the novelty of this paper. It is expected to include not only general description of the proposed method but also a brief summary of disadvantages of this method and some future study works. It would help the readers better understand the limitation and improvement of the proposed method. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This version is OK.

Back to TopTop