Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Regional Water Resources Carrying Capacity and Influencing Factors—Anhui Province as an Example
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article raises the critical issue of water resources. The presented reaserch results and the content of the article are acceptable in their current form.
Author Response
Thank you for your affirmation of my work, which will have a great incentive for my future work.Reviewer 2 Report
I revised the work titled “Dynamic evolution and spatial pattern analysis of regional water resources carrying capacity: Case study from Anhui province, China”. In my opinion, the work could be interesting for publication because in the scope of the Journal but there are several important aspects that must be addressed before a possible publication. I suggest to reconsider the work for publication after these improvements.
My main comments are the following:
1) Please, check the grammar and the punctuation in all manuscript because now the quality on this aspect is not enough to be published.
2) Each abbreviation should be defined firstly (e.g., line 12). Please, considering that you have many abbreviations, also add a nomenclature.
3) It is not clear what is the add-value of this work with respect to the existent literature. Please, detailed this aspect at the end of the Introduction. Moreover, which could be the stakeholders of your results?
4) If no analytical or practical tests have been done, section 2 should be named “methods”.
5) Line 152: “are mainly” is too generic.
6) Lines 300-304, the punctuations made the sentences not clear. Please, rephrase.
7) Figure 3. It is better to insert a legend for the colour to avoid misunderstanding in the “reading” of the figure.
8) In my opinion, the current discussion section is not enough. The work completely lacks a proper comparison with previous literature.
9) Conclusions should be shortened focusing only on main results. Moreover, other aspects should be discussed as the potential implications (if possible, also practical) of your results.
10) No content in Section 6 is available.
Please, check the grammar and the punctuation in all manuscript because now the quality on this aspect is not enough to be published.
Author Response
- Please, check the grammar and the punctuation in all manuscript because now the quality on this aspect is not enough to be published.
Author response：
The article has found professional native speakers to revise the grammar of the article.
- Each abbreviation should be defined firstly (e.g., line 12). Please, considering that you have many abbreviations, also add a nomenclature.
Author response：
Added annotations to the abbreviation part of this article.
- It is not clear what is the add-value of this work with respect to the existent literature. Please, detailed this aspect at the end of the Introduction. Moreover, which could be the stakeholders of your results?
Author response：
Added the article 's description of added value and stakeholders.
- If no analytical or practical tests have been done, section 2 should be named “methods”.
Author response：
section 2 was named “methods”.
- Line 152: “are mainly” is too generic..
Author response：
The problem of general expression of the article language has been modified.
- Lines 300-304, the punctuations made the sentences not clear. Please, rephrase.
Author response：
The local sentence was modified to make it read more clearly.
- Figure 3. It is better to insert a legend for the colour to avoid misunderstanding in the “reading” of the figure.
Author response：
Modify the type of picture to make it look more intuitive.
- In my opinion, the current discussion section is not enough. The work completely lacks a proper comparison with previous literature.
Author response：
The description of the discussion part is added, and the research ideas and promotion paths of water resources carrying capacity are discussed in combination with the research conclusions of relevant scholars.
- Conclusions should be shortened focusing only on main results. Moreover, other aspects should be discussed as the potential implications (if possible, also practical) of your results.
Author response：
It shortens the description of the conclusion part and makes it more refined.
- No content in Section 6 is available..
Author response：
The title of section 6 was deleted
Reviewer 3 Report
- Some sentences are not completed.
- The citation method has been mixed. Please correct.
- It is preferable to use SI units to ensure better understanding.
- Line 133: Please clarify the proportion of industrial structure.
- Lines 140-142: Please check the meaning of I II III IV.
- Table 1, a column of target layer is quite large while it is not important. The authors can remove it and enlarge columns 4 and 5.
- Please correct eqs (1) and (2). They are the same equation.
- Line 172: should it be "where i denotes...."?
- To explain in topic 2.1, the authors mentioned 2) calculate the entropy weight of indicators. Is is Pij ? If so, please also add the notation of those parameters to be easier to understand.
- Eqs.5 8 and 9 are for Wj. Are they the same or Wj1 Wj2?
- Lines 210-211, please check Eq. numbers.
- Eq.14, please note the meaning of parameters.
- Eqs15-24, please check if the meaning of all parameters are described.
- There are lots of word wit hyphen -, please check and remove as they are not important.
- Line 264, Figure 2 is not compatible with the sentence.
- Figure 3, 2D graph might be easier to understand.
- Lines 323-325, as there is the explanation of curve, please specify the Figure number.
- More theory could be used to help explaining the results. For example, the relationship of numbers in Markov transfer matrix are varied, what is the reason, why there is high relationship between each parameters.
- Line 472; some percentage ratio are explained without the numbers from the results/tables. Please explain about the reason or causes of these numbers.
-
Author Response
Reviewers 3：
- Some sentences are not completed.
Author response：
The sentence part of the article has been modified to make it more fluent.
- The citation method has been mixed. Please correct.
Author response：
The format was adjusted according to the requirements of the publishing house.
- It is preferable to use SI units to ensure better understanding.
Author response：
Some data in this paper are adjusted according to the international unit system.
- Line 133: Please clarify the proportion of industrial structure.
Author response：
The language description of this part has been modified.
- Lines 140-142: Please check the meaning of I II III IV.
Author response：
The I,II,III,IV types of water quality cross section involve a variety of statistical indicators such as COD concentration, ammonia nitrogen concentration, etc., and there is no simplified definition. The specific division basis can refer to the 'Surface Water Environmental Standards of the People 's Republic of China “https://www.mee.gov.cn/ywgz/fgbz/bz/bzwb/shjbh/shjzlbz/200206/t20020601_66497.shtml”.Therefore, I choose to delete this part of the expression.
.
- Table 1, a column of target layer is quite large while it is not important. The authors can remove it and enlarge columns 4 and 5..
Author response：
The table structure was adjusted according to the suggestion.
- Please correct eqs (1) and (2). They are the same equation..
Author response：
- Line 172: should it be "where i denotes....".
Author response：
Corrected the expression error, its correct form is” where i denotes”.
- To explain in topic 2.1, the authors mentioned 2) calculate the entropy weight of indicators. Is is Pij ? If so, please also add the notation of those parameters to be easier to understand.
Author response：
Corrected the expression of entropy weight and added the notation of those parameters.
- Eqs.5 8 and 9 are for Wj. Are they the same or Wj1 Wj2?
Author response：
The description content of the weight is modified, where W1j is the entropy weight and W2j is the CRITIC weight.
- Lines 210-211, please check Eq. numbers.
Author response：
Modified the number of Eq.
- Eq.14, please note the meaning of parameters?
Author response：
Add the meaning of parameters of Eq14.
- Eqs15-24, please check if the meaning of all parameters are described.
Author response：
A description of Formula ( 15-24 ) is added.
- There are lots of word wit hyphen -, please check and remove as they are not important.
Author response：
The text of the ' - ' character in the article was deleted.
- Line 264, Figure 2 is not compatible with the sentence.
Author response：
The description of this part is changed to make the statement more fluent.
- Figure 3, 2D graph might be easier to understand.
Author response：
changed the style of the picture.
- Lines 323-325, as there is the explanation of curve, please specify the Figure number.
Author response：
.
18.More theory could be used to help explaining the results. For example, the relationship of numbers in Markov transfer matrix are varied, what is the reason, why there is high relationship between each parameters.
Author response：
This section adds a description to explain the reasons for the formation of the Markov transition matrix.
18.Line 472; some percentage ratio are explained without the numbers from the results/tables. Please explain about the reason or causes of these numbers.
Author response：
The text expression of this part has been changed, and the decimal number has been replaced by the percentage.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for the improvement of the paper.
Moderate editing of English language required
