Promoting Sponge City Construction through Rainwater Trading: An Evolutionary Game Theory-Based Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It will be nice woth reflection about ho / if this is relevant outside the settings in China. I.e. what is the relevance for the rest of the worlrd

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper used EGT and simulation methods to analyze the strategic choices of EPEs and MEs, and put forward suggestions for possible choices of players. The model proposed analyzed the internal driving force of RWT behavior, can be feasibility references for promoting RWT and sponge city construction. As the author said, this paper still had some limitations. The EGT in this paper focused mostly on economic aspects. Non-economic factors should be given more consideration in research. The game model only takes into account two key players (i.e. EPEs and MEs), while some main group of rainwater collectors are not directly discussed. And there are other problems, which can be solved before it is considered for publication.

1.     There is a problem with the logical relationship of the research background in INTRODUCTION. In page 1, due to the impermeable surface, a considerable volume of rainwater could not permeate into the soil during the rainfall-runoff process. More and more cities have experienced severe rainstorms, it is a fact that cities experience heavy rainstorms.

2.     Need to sort out the relationship between the three terms: Rainwater harvesting and utilization systems (RHUs), Sponge city construction strategies (SCCSs), Rainwater trading (RWT). SCCSs> RHUs> RWT.

3.     Formulas and figures in this paper are not aligned; Parameter format is not uniform. There are many questions like these.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript addresses an important topic. Overall it is well written. Authors should address the following comments in the revised version:

1. Too many (25) references have been given in First paragraph. These should be reduced to half. Only important references should be given.

2. Figure 1 is not cited in the text and should not be included in the main text. Instead it should be moved to an Appendix before References section.

3.  Figure 2 has not be cited in the text. It should be stated after line 60 at an appropriate place.

4. spaces should be given before references. For example on line 65 - ... proposed [27-29], instead of "...proposed[27-29]

5. Authors should avoid very general statements, specially when given with references, like the one on line 69-70.

6. Paragraph starting from line 60 should be divided into two well structured paragraphs. I think 2nd should start at line 79. 

7.  spaces should be given between the numbers and units.

8. Abbreviations should be defined at first place in the text. For instance, SCCS, EPEs, and MEs.

9. The entire manuscript needs professional language editing. There are grammatical mistakes throughout the manuscript. For example, line 130 - 133.

10. The argument about price of municipal and tap water on line 140 needs further clarification.

11. The equations should be moved to main Table 1 from footnote by adding additional columns.

12. Section 2 and Section 3 can be easily be put together under one Methodology section.

13. Tile of heading 4 (now 3) should be results and discussion.

14. Overall, it is a very interesting paper. authors should give some examples of non-economic factors mentioned on line 581.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

• The author has amended the question and agreed to accept the paper.