A Three-Stage Hybrid Model for Space-Time Analysis of Water Resources Carrying Capacity: A Case Study of Jilin Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper entitled 'A three-stage hybrid model for space-time analysis of water resources carrying capacity: A case study of Jilin Province, China' offers a good methodology and strong results. The chosen theme is relevant and necessary to face the sustainable management of water resources in the coming years. The Chinese province of Jilin is taken as an area of study and methodological application.
However, important deficiencies are detected that should be resolved to achieve a general and specific improvement:
a) It would be necessary to organize the first sections in a more appropriate way. The introduction should be separated from the theoretical framework (or 'literature review'), as they have different functions. In addition, is necessary to explain (1 or 2 paragraphs in the introduction section) the article's organization in sections. Therefore, the paper should follow this order: (1) Introduction; (2) Literature review (or theoretical or conceptual framework); (3) Study area...;
b) Therefore, it is recommended to write an introduction section. The literature review can function as a theoretical framework;
c) It is important to improve the aesthetic appearance of Figure 1 and the resolution of Figure 4. Figure 1 should offer higher quality and resolution, as well as not offering blank maps;
d) It is necessary to deepen section 2 (Study area) through a much more significant geographical characterization. The existence of water resources is not detailed in Figure 2. In addition, it is important to contextualize the study area with a greater number of bibliographic references and analytical studies;
e) It is important to further detail the main data source (2.1). Making a scheme or graph with all data sources and their specific function would be appropriate;
f) A review of the tables is necessary (Table 2, 3, 4, 5, 7) in order to avoid words or phrases on different or broken lines. Acronyms can be used to synthesize some specific names;
g) The conclusions are sufficient and correct. Not so the discussion, which needs further deepening. A further explanation of the relationship between resource planning and water resources forecast obtained would be necessary;
h) Finally, it is necessary to offer more bibliographical references that can justify the study. These references can be included in the introduction, in the theoretical framework and in the methodology.
These requirements are also necessary to improve the overall understanding of the paper.
Best regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Editors：
First of all, thank you and the reviewers for your review comments. Based on the comments of you and the experts, the explanations are modified one by one as follows:
Point 1: It would be necessary to organize the first sections in a more appropriate way. The introduction should be separated from the theoretical framework (or 'literature review'), as they have different functions. In addition, is necessary to explain (1 or 2 paragraphs in the introduction section) the article's organization in sections. Therefore, the paper should follow this order: (1) Introduction; (2) Literature review (or theoretical or conceptual framework); (3) Study area...;
Response 1: The introduction section of this article was adjusted, and the literature review was placed in Section II.
Point 2: Therefore, it is recommended to write an introduction section. The literature review can function as a theoretical framework;
Response 2: The introduction has been adjusted according to the comments.
Point 3: It is important to improve the aesthetic appearance of Figure 1 and the resolution of Figure 4. Figure 1 should offer higher quality and resolution, as well as not offering blank maps;
Response 3: According to the comments, the figure 1 and figure 4 have been adjusted.
Point 4: It is necessary to deepen section 2 (Study area) through a much more significant geographical characterization. The existence of water resources is not detailed in Figure 2. In addition, it is important to contextualize the study area with a greater number of bibliographic references and analytical studies;
Response 4: According to the comments, the study area (Section 3.1) in this article has been adjusted, and the geographical characterization of Jilin and corresponding references have been added. Figure 2 mainly shows the three-phase study on the carrying capacity of water resources in Jilin Province. The existence of local water resources is mainly described in the study area (Section 3.1) and results (Section 5).
Point 5: It is important to further detail the main data source (2.1). Making a scheme or graph with all data sources and their specific function would be appropriate;
Response 5: Data sources (Section 3.2) in this article have been adjusted based on comments. A table is used to list the source of the data used in this article.
Point 6: A review of the tables is necessary (Table 2, 3, 4, 5, 7) in order to avoid words or phrases on different or broken lines. Acronyms can be used to synthesize some specific names;
Response 6: In the previous amendment, a new table was added to the data source (Section 3.2), resulting in the original Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, and Table 7 becoming Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5, Table 6 and Table 8, respectively.
In Table 3 and Table 4, the acronyms of the names of prefecture-level cities in Jilin Province are abbreviated and explained in the text (lines 243-245, blue font)
In Table 6, two variables are deleted.
In Table 8, the acronyms of the names of variable are abbreviated and explained in the text (lines 417-419, blue font)
Point 7: The conclusions are sufficient and correct. Not so the discussion, which needs further deepening. A further explanation of the relationship between resource planning and water resources forecast obtained would be necessary;
Response 7: The Discussion was modified based on comments. The change of surface water availability before and after water resources planning was analysed (lines 444-451, blue font).
Point 8: Finally, it is necessary to offer more bibliographical references that can justify the study. These references can be included in the introduction, in the theoretical framework and in the methodology.
Response 8: Based on comments, relevant references have been added to this article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The work is fine. The only problem for me was to understand the calculation of Eq.1 and 2 and how the variables of Table 1 were involved. Please make a more detailed section of 3.12 with more detailed equations.
Author Response
Dear Editors：
First of all, thank you and the reviewers for your review comments. Based on the comments of you and the experts, the explanations are modified one by one as follows:
Point 1: The work is fine. The only problem for me was to understand the calculation of Eq.1 and 2 and how the variables of Table 1 were involved. Please make a more detailed section of 3.1.2 with more detailed equations.
Response 1: Due to adjustments to the structure of the article, the original section 3.1.2 became section 4.1.2. Based on comments, the formulas in Tables 2 and 4.1.2 in Section 4.1.1 have been adjusted (lines 163-171, green font).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript deal with the topic of water resources carrying capacity and human pressure on the water resources in Jilin Province, China. The manuscript has a standard structure, and the topic can be interesting for the readers of the journal. However, the manuscript, in its present form, contains several weaknesses. Appropriate revisions to the following points should be undertaken before publication.
Broad comments
1) The aim of the manuscript is not very clear to me. Therefore, it is difficult to do the review correctly.
2) Meaning of the used abbreviations in the text is missing. It is not enought to use it only in the abstract.
3) Don't use the abbreviations in the key words.
4) Rewrite the introduction part. Several times occur very similar sentences (e.g. lines 91-93; lines 95-96).
5) I advice to replace phrase "water space". It is not clear what it mean from the context of the manuscript.
6) There are missing refferences in the methodology part. In case, that the authors developed the methodology or part of it, it should be described in more detail. How the limits were set up?
Specific comments
1) line 61 - missing rerrerence detail
2) fig. 2 - what does HWES mean?
3) line 240 - what does WECS mean?
Author Response
Dear Editors：
First of all, thank you and the reviewers for your review comments. Based on the comments of you and the experts, the explanations are modified one by one as follows:
Broad comments
Broad comments 1: The aim of the manuscript is not very clear to me. Therefore, it is difficult to do the review correctly.
Response 1: Thank you for taking the time to provide valuable comments on this article.
Broad comments 2: Meaning of the used abbreviations in the text is missing. It is not enought to use it only in the abstract.
Response 2: Based on comments, abbreviations in abstract and text have been modified.
Broad comments 3: Don't use the abbreviations in the key words.
Response 3: Based on comments, abbreviations in keywords have been modified
Broad comments 4: Rewrite the introduction part. Several times occur very similar sentences (e.g. lines 91-93; lines 95-96).
Response 4: In the latest manuscript, the Introduction part of the original manuscript has been adjusted to the Literature review. Based on comments, similar sentences in the text have been rewritten. (lines 78-81, lines 100-103, purple font)
Broad comments 5: I advice to replace phrase "water space". It is not clear what it mean from the context of the manuscript.
Response 5: According to the comments, the meaning of "water space" in the text is described. (lines 83-86, purple font)
Broad comments 6: There are missing refferences in the methodology part. In case, that the authors developed the methodology or part of it, it should be described in more detail. How the limits were set up?
Response 6: According to the comments, the setting of the relevant limits have been explained.
Specific comments
Specific comments 1: line 61 - missing reference detail
Response 7: Based on comments, the detail of reference was added. (lines 73-74, purple font)
Specific comments 2: fig. 2 - what does HWES mean?
Response 8: This is a writing error, which has been modified to HWRS, which is an acronym for human-water resources system.
Specific comments 3: line 240 - what does WECS mean?
Response 9: In order not to cause ambiguity, "WECS" has been deleted. (lines 242, purple font)
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
After reviewing your changes, the paper is ready to be accepted and published.
Congratulations on your effort and good work.
Best regards,
Reviewer
Reviewer 3 Report
The quality of the manuscript was enhanced after the revision. I don't have any other comments.
