Evaluation System Creation and Application of “Zero-Pollution Village” Based on Combined FAHP-TOPSIS Method: A Case Study of Zhejiang Province

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer comments

1.       This paper is well-written, and consistent will the rule of the journal.

2.       The abstract should be re-written as it is difficult to understand

3.       The introduction is brief and clearly expressed. However, the authors should consider using the most recent statistic from the UN and WHO. The statistics for years such as 2003, 2017, 2018 etc., are outdated.

4.       The results are well presented. However, the results lack empirical validation which implies that the authors must explore existing studies in this area of research. This will help make empirical comparisons in the discussion. Also, the authors will be able to justify the significance and contributions of their research to the body of knowledge.

5.       I could not find any recommendations suggested in this paper.

6.       The in-text citation is too shallow/lacking

7.       Generally, the paper is too lengthy, authors should consider reducing it.

Final remarks, this is a well-written paper, well done.  I recommend the acceptance of the paper after minor corrections

 

 

 

A native English speaker should proofread the paper 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Aim of the work is to propose a new evaluation system for the construction of a "zero-pollution village". Some suggestions are provided in order to improve the manuscript:

Abstract

Add the innovative contribution of the work and better clarify the methodology steps

Introduction

I think that the "Existing problems" should be moved up in the section, also the aims of the research. Or, if the Authors prefer, I can suggest to create a novel paragraph that summarize the existing problems and the aims of the research. Maybe this option can be better.

Research Methods

The contents of the lines 191-198 should be explained with much more details and transparency.

Figure 1 should be described

The acronyms "CRITIC method, and TOPSIS method" should be explained because, even they are well-known methods, is better always report the extended name. 

The weigthing process is a little bit tortuous. Why there is so much this necessity to avoid in every possible way the "subjectivity" that can occur? sometimes, it represents the real needs of the panel of expert that is involved and that, if it has been chosen in adequate way, could really represents the scientific and local thoughts. Please, I suggest to the Authors to provide more explainations on this issue in the manuscript. Furthermore, more references that highlight the usefulness of the AHP in the weighting procedure with indicators system should be added. Some of them could be: Anelli, D., & Tajani, F. (2023). Spatial decision support systems for effective ex-ante risk evaluation: An innovative model for improving the real estate redevelopment processes. Land Use Policy, 128, 106595. + Li, J., & Zou, P. X. (2011). Fuzzy AHP-based risk assessment methodology for PPP projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(12), 1205-1209.

The indicators list for the comparison matrices is missing.

Table 4 should be moved up in the section when the panel of expert is firstly cited

Please, revised the entire section in order to be clear in every steps. In fact, the Authors first mention the weighting process and then "3.4. Calculation of weights" it has been reproposed. I suggest to go on parallel: explaination of each step and application to the case study

Moreover, the case study should be added in a separate part of this section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors in my opinion, write very long introduction. Authors describe interesting topic construction of a "zero-pollution village" in China. The question arises if zero pollution is possible at all. Since deficiency of effective assesment tools curerntly, they want to  propose a new evaluation system for the construction of a "zero-pollution village". In literature review do they use  SLR or CLR methods?

• The manuscript is  relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner. 
• The cited references mostly recent publications (within the last 2017-20323 years, some of them are from 2013) and relevant, no much self-citations
• The manuscript scientifically sound and idesign appropriate to test the hypothesis
• Mmanuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section? Difficult to say
• The figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate.They properly show the data?they easy to interpret and understand and interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?Yes
• Please evaluate the ethics statements and data availability statements to ensure they are adequate.The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The efforts made by the Authors are apprecciated