Water–Energy–Land–Food Nexus to Assess the Environmental Impacts from Coal Mining

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The balance and stability of water-energy-land-food is the cornerstone to ensure the healthy development of human society. With the deepening and practice of sustainable development strategy, the requirements for water, energy, land and food are getting higher and higher. The manuscript focuses on the impact of coal mining on water resources, land resources and food production, and its results are of great practical significance, aiming to help protect the ecological environment under coal mining. On the whole, the manuscript is not innovative enough, and there are the following main problems that need to be explained and revised by the author.

1. Line 127: It seems that the innovation of this research introduced by the author in the introduction is not very clear, so it is suggested to emphasize it in order to highlight the highlights of this manuscript.
2. Section 2.1: The author has made a lot of introductions to the study area, but it seems to lack the key points. Please give a detailed introduction to water resources, energy, land and food.
3. Lines 225-322: Can the research data of each part be updated? It seems that all the data are in 2023 and before. Do they still have research value?
4. Lines 354~ 374: Regarding the toxic and harmful elements of water pollution, it is suggested that the author list the specific data.
5. Section 3.6: It is suggested that the author strengthen the quantitative data analysis, not just qualitative description.
6. Section 4: It is suggested to analyze the results with data as evidence, otherwise it is unconvincing.
7. Section 5: The conclusion part lacks main data, so it is suggested to supplement it.
8. Some references are too old, so it is suggested to update them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well composed and takes into account current trends in the analysis of the impact of mining activities on the environment. The authors cited a wide list of literature covering the WELF topic, both outside the area that was the subject of the analyses conducted.

The article is an important contribution to the considerations conducted within the WELF nexus but contains several minor elements requiring corrections as follows.

Considering the nature of the conducted study based on comparative analyses, it is necessary to justify the choice of a region that is devoid of mining activity but indirectly related to the area of ​​Anali. Both regions are located in the administrative area of ​​the state of Santa Catarina. In addition, the asymmetry in the scope of the data used, e.g. regarding water consumption, i.e. data for 2019 for Urussanga versus 2023 for Canoas / Pelotas (line 171-172), raises doubts.

Since the Shannon diversity index is widely used in various disciplines, such as population genetics studies, authors should introduce a brief justification that this index is suitable for assessing the diversity of selected compounds.

Scope of the Radar chart (Figure 8) should be extended to present and underline differences between WELF aspects in relation to both regions.

Despite the reliably conducted analyses and credible data sets, the presented conclusions seem obvious and result from the generally known relationships between mining activities and environmental resources and other elements such as land degradation or negative impact on other economic activities.

In Chapter 4. Implications from Results, the Authors point out, among other things, the lack of data and weaknesses in decision-making processes and strategies. An important aspect is the lack of discussion of the impact of the processes of issuing opinions and environmental decisions on mining activities. A more extensive discussion of these aspects would be justified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After revision by the author, the quality of the manuscript has been improved and it can be considered for publication.