Space-Time Pattern of Coupling Coordination between Environmental Regulation and Green Water Resource Efficiency in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is rich in content and has clear purpose to study. But there are a number of problems : 

 

First of all, there is a big problem in the design of the whole study, that is, Coupling coordination mechanism and model specification should be something you want to do, and there is no large number of references. 

Secondly, the selection of environmental regulation indicators is very unreasonable and unclear, which should be expressed in simple words or formulas. 

Third, the calculation method of green water resources efficiency has not been effectively explained. 

Fourth, the whole article has more serious traces of machine translation, many professional vocabulary expression is wrong. 

Fifth, the charts in the manuscript are not standardized enough, and the intentions expressed by many drawings are not clear. 

Sixth, the introduction of coupling coordination models should be reduced, while the focus on discussions and conclusions should be further strengthened.

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for doing such as amazing study. However, one fault of this work is the bad translation. If the original draft has been written in Chinese and then translated into English, I must say that the English Translation Services have done a horrible job. 

There is a lot of confusion from start to end. For an English reading global scientific community, this study is not Understandable.

This work tries to assess the role of environmental regulations in China in increasing the efficiency or use of green water resources.

However no where the mentions, what is green water resource. It is a scientific term that needs to be described vis a vis global context, then locally.  

Everywhere the term "green water resources efficiency" has been used, that creates confusion upon confusion. Rather it would have been more useful if a one-time acronym such as "GWRE" would have been used.

Moreover, there is insufficient information provided on the rationale of the study. 

How and what are the parameters used in the coupling model. I am perplexed to see, graphs without axes. 

 

Overall the study requires substantial improvements in 

1. Language

2. Introduction (no need to write separate literature review)

3. Storytelling, from Global to Local

4. Rationale 

5. Objectives

6. Clear easy takeaway messages for the policy/ decision-makers and the scientific community.

7. Clear-cut visualization of the results

8. Strong discussion

 

Best of luck 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript "Space-time Pattern of Coupling Coordination between Environmental Regulation and Green Water Resources Efficiency in China" is an interesting study in line with the aims of the journal, but it needs to be revised before publication. 

The abstract needs improvements. It is not informative enough, it needs to highlight briefly the starting point and scientific gap, detailed the set-up and method and the main results.

The introduction is short. It needs to be improved. It lacks focus on issues related to the present study. At the very end of the last paragraph of the Introduction, the authors should explicitly state the 'aim(s)' or 'objective(s)' or 'hypothesis (hypotheses)'.  However, since the introduction, the literature review section followed, this reviewer suggests adding the literature review as a sub-section of the introduction (1.1) and adding another sub-section (1.2) "Aims of the Study". In this sub-section, based on the literature review the scientific gap needs to be highlighted and the main objectives of the study displayed. 

Moreover, a table reporting all of the studies analyzed can be a useful tool for the reader and for the discussion. 

Methodology and results should be adequately separated. Thus the paper should be better organized in terms of the used methodology and the main results obtained. 

Finally, the conclusion section is long and needs to be summarized. Maybe the authors should add a new section before the conclusion (a Discussion section) in which they should place their results in a much broader scientific and international context. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have tried to improve their manuscript. However, the language of the manuscript still has a lot to improve. I recommend proofreading this paper by a professional English editing service.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed the previous reviewer's comments.

In the cover letter they have answered something not asked by this reviewer (please check point 3 "However no where the mentions, what is green water resource. It is a scientific term that needs to be described vis a vis global context, then locally. Everywhere the term "green water resources efficiency" has been used, that creates confusion upon confusion. Rather it would have been more useful if a one-time acronym such as "GWRE" would have been used"). 

However, the manuscript in this form is substantially improved and could be accepted for publication after a language spell check.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf