A Study on Resource Carrying Capacity and Early Warning of Urban Agglomerations of the Yellow River Basin Based on Sustainable Development Goals, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

sustainability-2576295

 Study on Resource-Carrying Capacity and Early Warning of China’s Yellow River Basin Urban Agglomeration Based on Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs)

Comments to Authors:

The manuscript is resubmitted after making certain essential corrections. I must say the authors did well to comply with the suggested modifications. Meanwhile, the still manuscript needs some improvements as follows:

1.      SDGs may be removed from the title.

2.      Long and complex sentences are found in the manuscript. Therefore, authors are suggested to proofread their manuscripts. Authors can see Lines 14 to 19. The acceptable size of the sentences should not exceed two or two and a half lines. The authors can also search for the acceptable range of the lines utilized to write a good research manuscript.

3.      While writing the abstract authors should always maintain a hierarchy of essential elements to be included in the abstract, for example, problem description, objectives, methods, findings, conclusion, research contribution, and future directions. Keeping in view this hierarchy, authors are advised to look into their abstract again.

4.      The last paragraph of the manuscript should be added with the remainder of the manuscript with research significance and linking with SDGs.

5.      It is not advisable to commence the new heading or subheading right after Figure (s) or Table (s). Correct your manuscript. See Figure 1 and subsection 2.2. Figure 1 should be enlarged to make it readable.

6.      Explain Figure 2 further. How does this assist in achieving research objectives?

7.       Table 1 should also be explained well. What do you extract from it?

8.      In the result section, Figures are not readable. Make them large, maybe one per page to make them clear and understandable.

9.      Some of the citations of the manuscript can’t be validated and at the same time, these look out of the time.  The authors are suggested to use fresh citations most preferably from the SUSTAINABILITY JOURNAL.

10.  The authors are also advised to see, cite and review these studies to improve their manuscript: DOI: 10.3390/su15076228; DOI: 10.1007/s10668-022-02288-5

11.  The conclusion section is an extended version of the Abstract. See the guidelines. Clarify research directions, significance, and contribution in this section. At the same time, clarify why academicians and reviewers should read this study.

12.  Add “scope and limitations” and “Potential Impact of Research” as separate subheadings in the manuscript. These sections may be placed just before the conclusion section.

 

13.  The authors are suggested to proofread their manuscript.

The manuscript needs proofreading.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I have had the opportunity to thoroughly review the paper. The authors present a well-structured study that addresses the crucial aspect of resource-carrying capacity in the context of regional development. The following is a comprehensive review of the paper, covering its methodology, findings, strengths, and recommendations for acceptance.

  Methodology:   The methodology employed in this study is innovative and comprehensive. The integration of remote sensing, geographic information systems, statistical analysis, and the utilization of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals assessment indicators showcase a rigorous approach to evaluating resource-carrying capacity. The construction of a "five-in-one" comprehensive carrying capacity evaluation model, which includes water resources, land resources, ecological resources, warning monitoring zones, and early warning grading, is noteworthy. This approach ensures a holistic assessment of the constraints and potentials of regional development.   Findings:   The study's findings offer valuable insights into the carrying capacity of the 59 cities in the urban agglomeration of the Yellow River Basin. The differentiation between surplus and deficit states for parameters like population, grain production, water resources, and ecological capacity provides a clear understanding of the region's development dynamics. The identification of shortages in urban agglomeration water resources, deficits in water resource carrying capacity, and variations in ecological carrying capacity enrich our understanding of the challenges faced by the region.   Strengths:   Holistic Approach: The integration of various techniques in constructing the carrying capacity evaluation model demonstrates a strong commitment to capturing the multidimensional nature of regional development.   Policy Relevance: The paper's alignment with the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals underscores its policy relevance and potential to contribute to sustainable development agendas.   Actionable Insights: The establishment of an early warning system for resource carrying capacity and the identification of heavy load conditions provide actionable insights for regional planners and policymakers.   Recommendation:  

Based on the comprehensive review of the entire paper, I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript for publication. The study's depth, innovative methodology, and policy implications make it a valuable contribution to the field of sustainable regional development. The authors' efforts in analyzing and quantifying resource-carrying capacity within the Yellow River Basin are commendable and have the potential to drive positive change in resource management practices.

The paper is well written and structued. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

How can be resolved the mismatch between the title and the contents?  This research made the comprehensive evaluation for environmental capacities for each city. On the other hand, The "early warning" made in this study would give some good/ bad evaluations to the cities, but no discussions to improve the current situation or to avoid the expected risk in the future were made by using those indices. The current way of discussion would be adequate if the author's point of discussion is not to improve the environmental problems, but only to evaluate the current environmental capacity of the cities.  

Author Response

Response: Thank you for the reviewer's feedback. Based on your suggestion, we have explained the mismatch between the title and the content. The early warning system in this study is to more clearly show the risk of the Yellow River urban agglomeration, provide the basis for the high quality and sustainable development of the Yellow River basin. This study does not currently discuss how to use these indices to improve the current situation, and your suggestions provide the direction for our future research content and direction. Thank you for your help.

We would like to express great appreciation to you for comments on our paper. Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely.

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The authors kindly answered all my comments and requirements. The manuscript has been significantly improved and now warrants publication in Sustainability journal.

Author Response

Response: Thank you for your professional suggestions, thank you for your affirmation of the article, your suggestions are of important help to our paper.

We would like to express great appreciation to you for comments on our paper.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments to Authors:

I congratulate the authors on their performance in the first round of review. However, some of the comments are given as follows:

1.      What can be the potential impact of this research? Please highlight.

2.      Revisit Figure 2. It can not be possible for one study that undertake all the 17 SDGs. Do not go out of scope. Just highlight the related SDGs this study has focused.

3.      The data are already published and almost 3 years old. The authors are advised to give proper Justification. Please see subsection 2.4 of the manuscript.

4.      Comment # 10 of the previous report is not seen in the manuscript. The authors are recommended to revisit the previous report. The suggested citations are not found. The authors are advised to make certain compliance in this regard and add more citations of the given research scope.

5.      The result and discussion have been written without considering the scope, aim, and objectives of the study. Therefore, the authors are suggested to link their results with the study's aim and objectives.

6.      The authors should confirm that the objectives of the study are achieved. Please see and correct the result and conclusion sections

7.      The authors are also suggested to establish a link between the methods and results sections. These should be written concerning the study objectives and scope. The methodology should clearly describe the tools that were actually executed to generate specific results. The results must clarify the achievement of the study objectives.

8.      Some policy implications may be added for the Yellow River Basin just before the conclusion section.

Some of the redundancy still found in the manuscript. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your patience and effort in our paper. Our reply is in the attachment, please see the attachment. 

Wish your life and work well!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Well revised.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your patience and effort in our paper.

Wish your life and work well!

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The authors have made certain suggested modifications. Few minor modifications needed as follows:

1. Research Contribution and Significance be added in Abstract and Conclusion sections in particular.

2. Show Similarity Index of your manuscript to editor.

3. For the final time proofread your manuscript.

4. The Future Directions and Way Forward may also be added considering the study area and scope of this study. 

 

English needs some improvement.

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

Thank you for your patience and effort in our paper. We have carefully considered the suggestion of reviewer and make some changes. Our reply is in the attachment, please see the attachment.

Wish your life and work well!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to Authors:

1.      Lines 11-14 state that “Urban agglomerations are the leading carrier of high-quality development in the Yellow River Basin, and the quality of their development is the key to the high-quality development of the Yellow River Basin and the sustainable exploitation and utilization of natural resources is the basis and guarantee of the sustainable development of the Yellow River Basin.”

a.      This first sentence is exceptionally long.

b.      This sentence is not readable.

c.       It can’t be apprehended what authors were actually trying to clarify.

d.      Authors are advised to proofread manuscript.

2.      Lines 52-56 & 56-61: Long and complex sentences are found. The authors suggested removing such loopholes. I must say the writing styles of the manuscript are below average.

3.      Figure 1. What authors are trying to highlight? It is not clear. Redraw this Figure.

4.      2.2 Data Source: Elaborate more. Essential information is missing.

5.      2.3 Methodology: How did you pick these all methods, Like Land Resource Carrying Capacity Model? I do not see the review section related to methodology. How did you come to know about this model? My Suggestions:

a.       Put a review section and cite related case studies in detail.

b.      Extract all selected methods from the reviewed literature.

c.       Suitable comprehensive methods should first be cited in the review section. Then you will be in a position to opt for the best possible methods for your study.

I must say that manuscript’s methodology is vague at the moment and stands alone.

6.      The authors have not explained the importance of the yellow river concerning urban agglomerations and its role in the economy of China. Clarify other socioeconomic, demographic, and cultural parts of the yellow river basin. The study solely focused on spatial analysis only without considering the ground realities.

7.      Demographic features of the Yellow River Basin are missing. How do you highlight the importance of the study?

8.      Comment on the agglomerations of the yellow river basin and compare them with other regions of China. Show some facts and figures.

9.      Table 1: Source is missing. It is not your work. If yes, how do you defend it? How you framed it?

10.  Figures 2-9 are not readable. Redraw. See related articles.

11.  No contribution is shown to the significance of the study.

12.  How does this study relate to sustainable development in the Yellow River Basin?

13.  I don’t see related literature on the Urban Agglomeration of the Yellow River Basin.

14.  This manuscript lacks essential points and basics.

15.  Rewrite the entire article. In its current form, this manuscript is not suitable for publication.

16.  Manage all sections and subsections of your manuscript. Many sections of the manuscript are underrated. Enrich them with facts and Figures.

17.  My Suggestion is to review related published articles on the subject matter. Identify loopholes in your study in addition to this review report and come again with flying colors.

18.  Some citations are found irrelevant. Authors are found to revisit citation rules and regulations. Put related citations, where necessary. A good manuscript should have reputable citations to show its importance.

19.  Clarify the scope and limitations of the Study. What is the Novelty of your research? What research gap has this study abridged? Answer these and many other questions.

20.  Proofreading is massively required.

The English of the manuscript is found below average. The manuscript should must be proofread.

Reviewer 2 Report

General Comments:

The paper presents an assessment of the resource-carrying capacity for urban agglomerations in the Yellow River Basin. The authors analyze the resource status of water, soil, and ecology and propose an early warning system based on the evaluation results. The research provides valuable insights into the limitations and potential areas of improvement for sustainable development in the region. Overall, the paper is well-structured and contributes to the understanding of resource management in urban agglomerations. However, there are a few areas that could be further addressed and improved.

 

Specific Comments:

1. Introduction:

The introduction sets the stage for the study by emphasizing the importance of urban agglomerations in the high-quality development of the Yellow River Basin. However, it would be beneficial to provide a more comprehensive review of the existing literature and studies related to resource-carrying capacity assessment in urban areas. This would help readers understand the research context and the novelty of the paper's contribution.

2. Data and Methodology:

While the paper mentions the use of statistical data from 59 prefecture-level cities in the Yellow River Basin urban agglomeration, more details regarding the data sources, time period, and collection methods are needed. Providing this information would enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the study. Additionally, a more detailed description of the methodology used to calculate the resource-carrying capacity for water, soil, and ecology would be valuable. This would enable readers to assess the robustness of the results and potentially replicate the study in other regions.

3. Results and Analysis

The paper presents the findings in a clear and concise manner. However, it would be beneficial to provide more detailed quantitative data to support the conclusions. For example, instead of stating percentages alone, provide the actual numerical values alongside the percentages. This will help readers better understand the magnitude of the resource surplus, deficit, and overload states in the urban agglomerations. Additionally, consider providing more comprehensive explanations of the resource-carrying capacity levels and their implications for resource management. This will assist readers in interpreting the results effectively.

4. Discussion:

The discussion section could be expanded to provide a deeper analysis and interpretation of the results. Discuss the practical implications of the findings and how they can guide policy and decision-making processes in the Yellow River Basin. Additionally, consider discussing the limitations of the study, such as any data constraints or assumptions made during the resource-carrying capacity assessment. This will provide a more balanced perspective on the research and help readers understand its boundaries.

5. Conclusion:

The conclusion provides a concise summary of the research findings. However, it would be beneficial to reinforce the key implications and contributions of the study. Briefly discuss how the early warning system proposed in the paper can effectively restrain the development and utilization of natural resources, ultimately contributing to the high-quality development of the Yellow River Basin. This will provide a stronger conclusion and highlight the practical significance of the research.

6. Language and Style:

Review the paper for language consistency and ensure that terminology is used accurately and consistently throughout. Additionally, check for any typographical or grammatical errors that may affect the overall quality of the paper.

Overall, the paper addresses an important topic and provides a valuable assessment of the resource-carrying capacity for urban agglomerations in the Yellow River Basin. By addressing the above-mentioned points and further refining the content, the paper will enhance its contribution to the field of resource management and sustainable development in the region.

Review the paper for language consistency and ensure that terminology is used accurately and consistently throughout. Additionally, check for any typographical or grammatical errors that may affect the overall quality of the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

The value of this paper is "quantification" of resource carrying capacity, and that was all. Also "early warning for some cities based on the quantified index was made, and that was all. In terms of methodology, all the indices are ad hoc due to the lack of any explanation or reason behind them.

line 133: Land resource carrying capacity in 2.3.1 is simply per capita food production. However, a food logistic system can increase the livable population in a region. Please add some explanation for this ignoring and for significance or advantage of eq.(2).

line 154 : Please an explanation about the unit of EC as hm^2.

Figure 2 to 9: What is the legend of 1.100 in each (b)  ?

line 159: (2) should be (3)

line 159: Please add an explanation about the difference between water resource carrying capacity and water footprint model, then please give a reason why such a similar indices are used here.  

line 178: What is 6 indices referred as j in eq.(7)?

line 181: EF is missing.

line 191:The implication of eq.(10) should be explained with its significance for policy recommendation.

line 196: C and S^c_i missing. Are these referred in the above sections ?

line 199 to 202: The first sentence  referring that 3 factors influence on the environmental characteristics  does not give a reason for the second sentence referring that weighting among S^c_i are equal.  Please add other reason.

line 215 (table 1): The scientific evidence of the evaluation method shown in table 1 was not shown, so the table is ad hoc.

line 401: The evaluation in this study and previous studies can be made as equal, since the criteria of evaluation in this study is ad hoc. Rather, the value of outputs other than quantification in this study should be commented.

line 440 (5.2) : Only a general issues are discussed. No connection between the findings and policy recommendation was found.

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic of the manuscript is interesting and significant, taking into consideration that resource-carrying capacity of urban agglomerations is an effective way to evaluate the coordinated development of resources, economic society and ecological environment, thus, to realize the harmony among environmental resources, economy and society in the study region. In addition, to quantitatively evaluate and diagnose the carrying capacity of a very large region (Yellow River) resources, an index system and corresponding grade criteria were constructed from the perspective of environment carrying capacity.

In my opinion, the methodology was appropriate and the results correctly interpreted. The following should be taken into consideration:

Several modifications should be performed according to the Author’s guidelines and requirements:

- affiliations should include the address information including city, zip code, state/province, and country.

- the abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum.

- references be described according to the requirements; also, please correct the cited references in the text.

- please use past tense in the abstract, discussions and conclusion when presenting the obtained results.

Repeating the same words or word structures is tedious. Please use abbreviations, e.g. for water resources carrying capacity (WRCC), resource-carrying capacity (RCC) in Table 1 and the foot-note.

Page 3, lines 97-101: repetition of “urban agglomeration” makes the text difficult to read.

Page 5, lines 171-172: please delete “ec is the per capita water footprint…” It is the same as in the line 169. Please delete it.

Lines 181-182: EF is the ecological carrying capacity. EFC is the ecological carrying capacity. It is the same name?

In the foot-note of Table 1: “When two or more of the three resource-carrying capacities are in an overload state, the load level is in level one of a special severe load state”, but in the table it was written “extremely severe load”. Please correct it.

Lines 247-251: too many repetitions of urban agglomerations. The same for lines 347-359.