Distribution Characteristics of Drought Resistance and Disaster Reduction Capability and the Identification of Key Factors—A Case Study of a Typical Area in the Yun–Gui Plateau, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

What is “run-off negative index”?

Figure 3, why are intercept set as zero? Because x and y axis are not the same (e.g 75 % and 90%, not 75% and 75% estimation), usually the intercept is given non zero.

Equation 5, What are L, N and r? and where is m and R in the equation?

Equation 6, why Fi and Ff are 1.00? What are the consequences when thery are not 1.00

Table 3. is confusing, the table header seems to mislead. For example the content of column 1 row 2 is not return period

Figure 2. I think it is not a road map, first there are no time/milestones of achievements, second it is more like procedure or algorithm to reach the objectives of this paper.

Would you explain about ”index layer” and “criterion layer” , why economic power does not have criterion layer.

Lines 356-368, What does this lines talking abou? “The elements on the diagonal of the state transition probability matrix represent the probability of transition between the same levels using both methods, while the off-diagonal elements represent the probability of transition-358 ing between different levels”

Table 6 (also in early tables of this manuscpript), how these “indicators” were chosen? Are they due to regulations in effect, by systematic reviews or else.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments

This study attempts to study drought resistance & disaster reduction capability and key factors for capability enhancement over the Yun-Gui Plateau of China. On one hand, Kaster landform has weak surface water storage so more sensitive to the drought. On the other hand, this study uses the national disaster survey database which is very new. In this sense, this study has novelty and is worthwhile to be published. However, the following points need to be further clarified before acceptance.

1.      The abstract needs to be more concentrated on the novelty point I have pointed as above.

2.      Some inconsistencies for criterion layers. In section 3.1.3, four aspects are discussed for the criterion layer (Lines 200–202), while in other parts of the text, such as the abstract and the description of Fig6, there are five aspects. Please make them consistent with each other.

3.      Method part needs further clarification. The authors mention adjusting the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation by modifying the fitted weighting coefficients (Lines 336–346). It would be helpful to provide more detailed information about the adjustment processes, including the following points: 1) why to choose 60% as the standard for weight adjustment. And please give the evidence if there is a theoretical basis or empirical support for this choice. 2) to provide sensitivity analysis to demonstrate the stability and non-randomness of the results, which would make the result more solid. 3) to discuss the differences between the two approaches used in the study (fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and water supply-demand balance) and explore potential reasons for any disparities in the results.

4.      There is a discrepancy between the text and the tables in the manuscript. For instance, in Lines 374–377, it is stated that there were five indicators with contribution rates exceeding 5%. However, when referencing Table 6, it becomes apparent that the contribution rate of the sixth factor, "cultivated land effective irrigation rate," also exceeds 5%. Please check the inconsistency 

 

The English language needs to be improved by native polishing. For example, even in abstract " ..., including natural conditions, water conservancy project, economic strength, water usage and water conservation level, and emergency support capacity A comprehensive evaluation was conducted  using a fuzzy evaluation model. " which is hard to read. There could miss some words before "A comprehensive"  . The similar problems occur several times, like in Line 107.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1-     The title is heavy. Be more concise.

2-     In the introduction section, the literature review is old and not enough. It is better to refer to key articles. Their strengths and weaknesses should be mentioned and then the novelty of this article should be determined. Literature review should be summarized and innovation and goals should be clearly stated.

3-      According to the described experiments plan, the goals are not well explained.

4-     The methodology is very brief. It is better presented for the general reader.

5-     The statistical method should be developed.

6-     Please add reference for table 3.

7-     Why the effects of climate change have not been investigated?

8-      The results have been organized very well, but there is a need for sufficient discussion on the results.

9-     The resolution of the maps in the results section is very low.

10-  The limitations of the research should be mentioned in the conclusion section. Present the main achievement of the research and its application in the field.

11-   Summarize part of the results. It is very vague.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf