The Effect of Water Rights Trading Policy on Water Resource Utilization Efficiency: Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewers’ comments

Overall, it is an interesting paper looking into the effects of China's water rights trading policy on water resources utilization efficiency. However, there are several issues that need to be address.

Minor comments

1. Not sure why the authors have a question mark in the title when there is no question being asked. Perhaps a colon would be satisfactory.
2. Looking at the results, I may not agree with the statement “the study provides microscopic evidence ….” described in the abstract. The authors may have to revise accordingly.
3. Check line 31 ‘In 2014, China implemented …….’
4. Check line 38-43; the sentence lacks clarity.
5. Check the numbering of the manuscript. There seem to be not section 1 (I will assume the introductory part is section 1, but it is not labelled as such). It then continues with literature review as section 2.
6. Lines 95-100 is just a repetition of line 38-43. The authors must go straight to the point with repetitive statements.
7. Not sure what the authors mean in line 160-163. Provide clarity.
8. In line 296-299, the use of vice versa does not sound right. The authors may want to consider rephrasing.
9. It would be helpful to use different line for figure 1 to distinguish between the lines.
10. The authors should be consistent with their abbreviation. For example, DID is referred to as difference in difference at some point and double difference at another point. Even if it means the same it is better to be consistent.
11. After the first time DID is used and defined, there is no need to define it every other time it is used in the manuscript.

 

Major comments

1. There are references cited in the text that were not in the list of references, eg. Sun et. al, 2014,
2. In line 48-58, the authors highlight the two ways water rights trading policy affects water resource utilization but then go on to indicate the paper attempts to study whether the water rights trading policy has a positive impact. The two items mentioned earlier suggest a positive impact is the intended purpose making the premise for the study a weak one. In fact, in line 73-74, the authors say their study confirms water trading policy can promote water resource utilization efficiency, which is already an established fact.

I will suggest the authors provide a much clearer and a better premise for their work.

3. In lines 65-72, the authors present some findings. It is not clear whether these are results from this study or previous work. If it is from this study, I am not sure why results/findings will appear in the introduction, however, if it from the literature, the authors much clarify that and provide references.
4. The section two in unnecessary. It can be folded into the introduction to provide a stronger basis/justification for the paper.
5. The authors have not followed the template. Methodology and results are put together. Manuscripts are usually prepared as introduction, material and methods, results and discussion, conclusion. I suggest the authors follow this approach.
6. It is very difficult to agree with the interpretation provided in line 222-224. First, what is the basis for classifying a 0.73 efficiency as low. Second, a low score would not necessarily mean the province does not realize the simultaneous effectiveness of both primary use and sewage treatment. This is a long shot.
7. The authors do not make any reference to any previous work to support their results.
8. From line 234-263, the authors present only the results shown on Table 2 and Figure 1 without any discussion or interpretation of what that result really mean. Without the discussion, the usefulness of the paper is minimized. I suggest the authors consider providing the implications of these results and what inferences/lessons can be drawn.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Hi

I had some comments and you can find them in the attached file. The main problem was paper format and it was completely different with MDPI submission. Please update and resubmit the paper after correct formation.

Thanks

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have responded well to my comments

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for providing the revised version.