Research on Risk Evolution Mechanism of Urban River Ecological Governance Project Based on Social Network Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has some technical content ..but I suggest a restructuring

Figure ½ etc caption can be revised , as it looks like that of a research  report

Literature work should be  merged to Introduction and state the gaps towards the end .Then state the objectives precisely in this section

Table 1 is to be shortened ad merged in Introduction or shifted to supplementary information

All the general definitions in section 5 should be moved to section 3  Methodology .. here it can be on general complex network related and river network (now under line 127)

 Then section 4 can be completely on case study project .. its results and discussion

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study is about the construction of the complex network model for risk evolution study for the urban river ecological governance project. The proposed model was implemented and verified in the Jinghe ecological management project. Following comments can be addressed by the authors:

1. The main objective of the study can be highlighted with significant novelty compared to current research literature in the Introduction section

2. Without addressing the technical relationship between the nodes and only considering casual relationship between the risks, how the proposed approach for risk evolution will be effective for engineering projects? Authors should justify the same.

3. For construction of the complex network, the authors selected single-core ring network. It is significant to mention the importance for selection of ring network, why not no-core, star, lumped lines etc. How the proposed single-core ring network is suitable for urban river ecology has to be justified.

4. There is lot of repetition of the content, for example line no. 288-290 and line no. 292-294, stating the similar information.

5. There are minor corrections and improvements necessary, such as figures resolution, grammar, formatting, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper “Research on risk evolution mechanism of urban river ecological governance project based on social network analysis” aims and scope match those of Water. In general, I think this work is interesting and informative to most readers of this field. However, I have the following comments that hopefully help the authors improve their paper:

1. I suggest the authors to improve the introduction section. Authors should better highlight the objective of their work and to what extent it contributes to close a gap in the existing literature and/or practice. What is the innovative value of the contribution proposed by the authors? How decision or policy makers could benefit from this study?

2. What are the limitations of the study in terms of data used, approaches, and/or analysis?

3. How should we know about the quality of these solutions? Could you compare these results with some existing approaches in literature? The improvement must be discussed.

4. Suggest the author to replace images with low clarity in the paper.

5. The English grammar of the manuscript needs to be optimally revised, and some sentences in the manuscript contain incorrect use of grammatical subordinate clauses. So, the author (s) is suggested to check and edit English throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This work is interesting, focusing on a key topic for the future Urban policy about risk management, climate change adaptation and resilience.

The methodology used contribute to determine a High novelty degree. Paper structure is clear and well-defined.

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

Starting from 63 risk elements of urban river ecological management projects, the authors build and analyze the risk network.  The study provides guidance on the management of Networks for the purpose of effective prevention by demonstrating the importance of controlling both the risk of the starting node and that it must be controlled and the leading node that indirectly triggers the propagation of risk.

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

The topic Is relevant and original although It should be more linked to actual solutions present in the scientific literature

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

It proposes a novel approach to the management of Urban River risk mechanism

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

They could compare their findings with other existing approaches

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

Yes, of course

6. Are the references appropriate?

Yes, they are acoording to their novel approach. 

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

Some figures could be improved in quality

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The major issue was in the presentation ..It seems that authors have restructured the Manuscript and hence now it is more presentable /systematic form

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors has modified the manuscript accroding to the reviewer's suggestions.

Reviewer 4 Report

The additions proposed by the authors take on board the suggestions of the reviewers. The paper is considerably improved and is now ready for publication