Analysis of Virtual Water Flow Patterns and Their Drivers in the Yellow River Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscripts of Yike Xu et al. presented the influencing factors of virtual water flow based on multi-regional input-output model of the Yellow River basin in 2012 and 2017. Moreover, authors provide directions for using virtual water flow to alleviate water shortage in water-scarce areas of the basin. However, this paper needs to be improved in the following points:
1. It is challenging to read and follow the flow of the manuscript due to poor English usage and frequent grammatical errors. Most of the sentences in this manuscript contains a grammatical error, hence it shouldn't be accepted without having been proofread by a native English speaker.
2. In figure 1, Nansha Islands is lacked.
3. From line 141-143, unit m3 should be superscript. Line 148 “Error! Reference source not found” should be deleted.
4. Figure 2 is lack of ordinate axis and unit.
5. Line 158
6. The study area is a river basin but data of input-output table and other data source are from administrative unit. How the data are processed? Figure 3 is the results of every provinces and the virtual water flow is the whole provinces or the part in Huanghe river basin?
7. Line 219: What is the “IPAT equation 22”?
8. Data source in this paper should be elaborated in one part.
9. When STIRPAT method is used to analyze the influencing factors, only two years of trade data are available, whether there is contingency, and how to ensure the credibility of the results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The first paragraph of the introduction lacks logic and some words are not expressed accurately. Please revise it carefully.
2. The literature review is relatively weak. I don't think the innovation of this research can be achieved through the simple examples of several literatures by the author.
3. The author should give some detailed explanation of the STIRPAT model so that the reader is clear about the advantages of the author's adoption of this model.
4. The last paragraph of the introduction should not simply outline the content of the various parts of the paper. It should be expanded to describe it.
5. There is an error in the introduction of the picture, please check and correct it.
6. Figure 1 lacks scale.
7. The per capita water resources of the Yellow River is 473 m³, less than a quarter of the national average, yet it meets the water needs of 15% of China's arable land and 12% of the population. Yet it meets the water needs of 15% of China's arable land and 12% of the population.
8. Internationally recognized water scarcity standards are divided into four levels, with per capita water resources below 3000m3 for mild water scarcity, below 2000m3 for moderate water scarcity, and below 1000m3 for severe water scarcity; Below 500 m³, the water shortage is extreme. -- Lack of supporting materials.
9. As for data sources, the author describes them in general terms. It is suggested to draw a table, classification method to refine it.
10. The discussion section is weak, and it is not a simple extension of the results, but should have deeper content.
11. The conclusion is too long, too long, and should be highly generalized, not just a simple retelling of the findings.
12. The overall quality of the picture is poor, and it is suggested to improve.
13、Virtual water includes blue water and green water, which is not accurately described by the author in the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I found the paper very interesting and adds value to the research into virtual water. The material was well written (notwithstanding the following) and clearly presented. Unfortunately, the text throughout is marred with incomplete referencing to the figures and tables. I strongly encourage a rewrite of the main text so proper attribution to figures and tables are clear to the reader.
Examples include:
Line 127: referencing Figure 1
Line 158: referencing Figure 2
:
:
:
Etc.
Other editorials:
Line 65: “… omission, double counting [9]”. Incomplete sentence.
Lines 141 and 142: m3 should be m3 .
Line 196: “Wh Where …”. Editorial.
Line 219:” equation 22”. Should that be “equation [22]”?
Line 225: Should reference [23] be [24]?
Line 237: “..heterosexuality…”. ?
Lines 606-672: The term “[CrossRef]” appears in all citations. Needs fixing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This article describes the construction of a multi-regional input-output model of water resources in the Yellow River Basin in 2012 and 2017, to measure and analyse the spatial and temporal patterns of virtual water flows in the Yellow River Basin, and analyse their drivers using the extended STIRPAT model. The ultimate suggested objective is to provide theoretical support for the rational formulation of trade, population, and industrial policies in the Yellow River Basin provinces, so as to prevent further deterioration of virtual water trade on water shortage in the basin. The paper is expressed in excellent English but the concepts being discussed are difficult to appreciate. One is left with the impression that the authors would like to balance inputs and outputs of virtual water within each province as a primary driver for considering future economic development of each province, but have not necessarily justified why this objective should be pursued.
The following comments are offered
Line 43, - the authors begin to speak of virtual water research, but have yet to describe what is meant by “virtual water” It is suggested that the current lines 43-52 should be relocated after virtual water is defined, and in the correct draft, would be relocated after line 72
Line 85 – By this point, the authors need to have clarified whether “virtual water trade” refers to the agricultural economy or the total economy of the respective provinces – it is only in subsequent text that the latter becomes clear.
Line 141 – The concept of “Internationally recognized water scarcity standards” is introduced. This should be referenced, and it may have been at line 141 where the pdf conversion has produced “Error! Reference source not found”. This problem occurs throughout the manuscript as provided to the reviewer.
Figure 2 – There are no units provided for the histograms describing the water resources and use shown. Units should be shown on the “y” axis.
Line 162 – There is reference to “water resources can be 162 transferred to other water-scarce areas,”. The extent of water resource imports from outside the Basin to, for example, the Lower Reach of the Yellow River Basin could be clarified. Is or will any water be brought to the Basin from, for example, the South to North Water Diversion Project (南水北调工程)?
Line 196 – delete “Wh” at beginning of line
Line 219 – A reference is required for York. Perhaps Richard York, Eugene A. Rosa and Thomas Dietz (2003) STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts, Ecological Economics 46(3):351-365, DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00188-5 is what you have in mind?
Line 310 and many other places. The word “always” is used in phrases such as “always been in the state of net water inflow in 2012 and 2017”. This will be read by most English readers as “every year from 2012 to 2017”, but you do not give data for every year, only for 2012 and 2017. An expression like “both 2012 and 2017” would be more appropriate.
In addition, the article does not describe whether there was any difference in rainfall, and hence water conservation, in the two years 2012 and 2017, and what impact that variation may have had on the data presented.
Line 318, 321, When the words “significant” or “significantly” are used. In a scientific publication, these are usually used after a statistical test has been performed on the data, but that would not appear to be the case here. Perhaps “much greater” or similar would be appropriate if emphasis is being sought.
Table 3 – The terms “upstream area”, “midstream region” and “downstream area” are not congruent with the terms “Upper, middle and lower reaches” used in Figure 1. The consistent use of terms is suggested.
Figure 3 – needs clarification of the “y” axis. If those above zero and inflows, and those below zero are outflows, as implied by the colour key, the axis labelling should be clarified. Should those below zero be shown as negatives as they are in figure 5?
Figure 5 – This figure needs reviewing. Per capita water resources are shown in different colours but there is no key to what the colours mean, and colour differentiation appears unnecessary. The caption states that the figure shows water outflows. I suspect there is a problem of “double negatives:” here. From the caption, a literal interpretation is that those above zero are outflows, and those below zero are inflows. That appears to be the reverse of what is meant. The plotting of provinces should be reviewed for congruence with figure 3. Henan appears correctly plotted as having net outflows both years. However, Shandong is shown as having a large net outflow in 2012 and a small net inflow in 2019. This does not match what is presented in Figure 3
Line 489-491 reads “while the decrease of the proportion of the out-put value of agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fishery will also expand the dependence of the Yellow River basin on external water resources” In what terms is “value” meant? Yuan or virtual water? The sentence appears to be expressed in percentage concept terms, but what really matters are the actual units used in production, whether as virtual water or actual water.
Lines 507-508 reading : “Therefore, water-scarce areas in the Yellow River Basin can accelerate to achieve high economic development and increase GDP per capita, thus promoting virtual water inflow from external provinces and regions” This seems to suggest that in Gansu and Ningxia, for example, “more manufacturing, services construction etc”. should be encouraged to increase the imports of virtual water to offset the exports of virtual water, presumably of agricultural crops and livestock to other yellow River provinces and otherf regions of China. But that does not consider whether the “more manufacturing, services, construction etc” might be better developed in other areas of the country.
The authors do not provide any comment on the merits of a multi-regional input-output model of water resources as distinct from the common use of economic multi-regional input-output modes as aids to development planning.
Author Response
Please check the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have reviesed the paper earnestly and it can be published
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for agreeing to publish our article.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. It is suggested to improve the literature review. The existing content lacks logic. Moreover, the literature cited is too old to represent the latest research progress.
2. The per capita water resources of the Yellow River is 473 m³, less than a quarter of the national average, yet it meets the water needs of 15% of China's arable land and 12% of the population. Yet it meets the water needs of 15% of China's arable land and 12% of the population. -- This sentence lacks supporting material.
3. Data sources -- Data sources should be specific to the year.
4. For my question "Virtual water includes blue water and green water, which is not accurately described by the author in the article. "Which is not accurately described by the author in the article." Furthermore, the quantification method of virtual water is not described.
5. The conclusion is too long.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version to the paper is a major improvement. Thank you for addressing all of this reviewer's comments.
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for your approval of our article.
