Evaluation of Water Resources Utilization Efficiency Based on DEA and AHP under Climate Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper contributes to the understanding of using data envelope analysis and AHP to analyze contributing factors and water use efficiency.  However, it requires improvement, and my suggestion is to return it to the authors for a major revision.

The starting point would be a better introduction of the concept of water use efficiency and its components. The authors mention efficiency on page 2, but the description is inadequate.

They should explain in the first part of the paper that the study is in the Tuman Basin and why this makes a good case.  The basin is presently not mentioned in the introduction.

These types of computational studies may have some practical value, but they authors should explain better how the work will be used.  They allude to this on page 3, and should explan and clarify this statement:  “research results can provide a basis for strengthening regional water resources management, improving water resources utilization efficiency, and alleviating the contradiction between water resources supply and demand.”

The paragraphs should be unpacked such that disparate subjects are not mixed together. This is evident on page 2 (middle paragraph). 

The discussion on pages and 15 about the different uses of water seems confused.  For example, on page “we used DEA to analyze the water use efficiency of domestic agriculture and industry, and combined with the weights of various influencing factors obtained by APH methods…”

Suggestions for improved water management are on page 16, but what is the basis?  Did the authors pick these out of the air, or how did they determine them?  The suggestions are well known methods of water resources management anyway, so what is new here?

In the conclusions, please explain better what contributions DEA and AHP made to the overall problem.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for providing me an opportunity to review the entitled manuscript "Evaluation of water resources utilization efficiency based on DEA and AHP under climate change". The authors used data envelopment analysis (DEA-BCCR model) to quantify domestic, agricultural, and industrial water use efficiency in the Tumen River Basin (TRB) and further analyzed the main influencing factors of water use efficiency in each sector. The manuscript is relatively completed and can be accepted for publication with minor efforts. 

Minor comments:

Study area need to improve by including more geographic country boundaries, isohets of precipitation information, and other hydro-climatic information. Elevation is not enough to explain the features of study area.

Figures are too small and need to increase the resolution and text size.

Figure 2. Include province boundaries in the map

 Table 1 The numerical values and the corresponding levels of importance. How the criteria are decided? The author should cite related references:

Mapping favorable groundwater potential recharge zones using a GIS-based analytical hierarchical process and probability frequency ratio model: A case study from an agro-urban region of Pakistan. Geoscience Frontiers, 11(5), pp.1805-1819.

Comparison of multi-criteria-analytical hierarchy process and machine learning-boosted tree models for regional flood susceptibility mapping: a case study from Slovakia. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 12(1), pp.1153-1180.

A modified approach to quantify aquifer vulnerability to pollution towards sustainable groundwater management in Irrigated Indus Basin. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2022 Apr;29(18):27257-78.

The discussion section needs improvement to discuss results with recent literature, comparisons, and shortcomings of current studies.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors didn't incorporate all the comments of my previous round of review.

Suggested references were not cited to justify the novelty. Recent literatures need to be incorporated in the introduction sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx