Joint Optimal Dispatch of Complex Urban Raw Water Supply: A Case Study of Lanxi City, Zhejiang Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript ID water-2556394 entitled " Research on Joint Optimal Dispatch of Complex Urban Raw Water Supply: A Case Study of Lanxi City, Zhejiang Province, China" has been reviewed. The study on optimizing the coordinated scheduling of multiple water sources in urban raw water systems is of significant scientific value, especially for water-deficient cities. The comments of this paper are provided as follows.

 

1)       It is suggested to delete the erroneous symbols on lines 462 and 474.

2)       In section 2.3.2, please add a predefined graphical representation of the reservoir water supply scheduling to enhance readability of paper.

3)       It is recommended to move Formula (1) to below line 434.

4)       For the representation of objective functions F1, F2, F3, and partition water supply guarantee rates P1, P2, ..., PN, please use italics throughout the document and pay attention to the use of subscript symbols.

5)       Please correct the expression of the month on line 454.

6)       The term "jinhua" first appears on line 202 in this paper. I suggest providing an abbreviation for it at this point, and using the abbreviation consistently in the following text. Please check and modify similar issues accordingly.

7)       There are instances of "ZY Reservoir" and "ZY reservoir" in the text. I suggest using "ZY Reservoir" consistently. Please check and modify similar issues accordingly.

8)       Please check whether the unit of “4.24 m³” in line 608 and “3.27 m³” line 615 is accurate.

9)       It is recommended to check that the explanations of the formula symbols are all provided.

10)    Is the Zone in the legend in Figure 3 considered to be changed to district for unification?

Manuscript ID water-2556394 entitled " Research on Joint Optimal Dispatch of Complex Urban Raw Water Supply: A Case Study of Lanxi City, Zhejiang Province, China" has been reviewed. The study on optimizing the coordinated scheduling of multiple water sources in urban raw water systems is of significant scientific value, especially for water-deficient cities. The comments of this paper are provided as follows.

 

1)       It is suggested to delete the erroneous symbols on lines 462 and 474.

2)       In section 2.3.2, please add a predefined graphical representation of the reservoir water supply scheduling to enhance readability of paper.

3)       It is recommended to move Formula (1) to below line 434.

4)       For the representation of objective functions F1, F2, F3, and partition water supply guarantee rates P1, P2, ..., PN, please use italics throughout the document and pay attention to the use of subscript symbols.

5)       Please correct the expression of the month on line 454.

6)       The term "jinhua" first appears on line 202 in this paper. I suggest providing an abbreviation for it at this point, and using the abbreviation consistently in the following text. Please check and modify similar issues accordingly.

7)       There are instances of "ZY Reservoir" and "ZY reservoir" in the text. I suggest using "ZY Reservoir" consistently. Please check and modify similar issues accordingly.

8)       Please check whether the unit of “4.24 m³” in line 608 and “3.27 m³” line 615 is accurate.

9)       It is recommended to check that the explanations of the formula symbols are all provided.

10)    Is the Zone in the legend in Figure 3 considered to be changed to district for unification?

Author Response

Manuscript ID water-2556394 entitled " Research on Joint Optimal Dispatch of Complex Urban Raw Water Supply: A Case Study of Lanxi City, Zhejiang Province, China" has been reviewed. The study on optimizing the coordinated scheduling of multiple water sources in urban raw water systems is of significant scientific value, especially for water-deficient cities. The comments of this paper are provided as follows.

• It is suggested to delete the erroneous symbols on lines 462 and 474.

Response: The author has deleted the erroneous symbols on lines 462 and 474 and the blank lines before and after other formulas.

• In section 2.3.2, please add a predefined graphical representation of the reservoir water supply scheduling to enhance readability of paper.

Response: The author has added the figure 4 in section 2.3.2 after line 377. Accordingly, we also adjusted the sequence of other figures.

• It is recommended to move Formula (1) to below line 434.

Response: The location of the Formula (1) has been changed.

• For the representation of objective functions F1, F2, F3, and partition water supply guarantee rates P1, P2, ..., PN, please use italics throughout the document and pay attention to the use of subscript symbols.

Response: The italic and subscript forms of the formula symbols have all been modified.

• Please correct the expression of the month on line 454.

Response: The expression of the month has been corrected. The sentence has been rewrite as “The study is divided into three stages: March to July, August to October, and November to the February of next year.”

• The term "jinhua" first appears on line 202 in this paper. I suggest providing an abbreviation for it at this point, and using the abbreviation consistently in the following text. Please check and modify similar issues accordingly.

Response: The abbreviation of "jinhua" ,named JH, has been added on line 202 in this paper. The abbreviation has been used in the following text.

• There are instances of "ZY Reservoir" and "ZY reservoir" in the text. I suggest using "ZY Reservoir" consistently. Please check and modify similar issues accordingly.

Response: The expressions of the "ZY Reservoir", "QTL Reservoir", "CT Reservoir" have been utilized consistently.

• Please check whether the unit of “4.24 m³” in line 608 and “3.27 m³” line 615 is accurate.

Response: The unit of these two has been changed into “million m³”.

• It is recommended to check that the explanations of the formula symbols are all provided.

Response: The explanations for the missing formula symbols have been added.

10)    Is the Zone in the legend in Figure 3 considered to be changed to district for unification?

Response: The Zone in the legend in Figure 3 has been changed to district. The modifed Figure 3 has been employed in this paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors established a multi-source and multi-objective joint optimization scheduling model and analyzed the impact of joint optimization scheduling measures on the benefits of water supply in Lanxi City, Zhejiang Province, China. The manuscript has a clear structure, and the study is attractive. The specific opinions are as follows:

1. There is an error in Line 201: the corner mark of Square kilometre is wrongly written.

2. There seems to be an issue with the formatting of lines 462 and 474. And, there is a clerical error at the beginning of Line 484.

3. Is the content of Lines 550-554 closely related to the research?

4. Why is there no legend for (b) in Figure 5? If three subgraph legends have the same form, it is recommended to consider merging these legends.

 

5. The limitations of the research should be stated. Or did I miss something?

 

Author Response

The authors established a multi-source and multi-objective joint optimization scheduling model and analyzed the impact of joint optimization scheduling measures on the benefits of water supply in Lanxi City, Zhejiang Province, China. The manuscript has a clear structure, and the study is attractive. The specific opinions are as follows:

1. There is an error in Line 201: the corner mark of Square kilometre is wrongly written.

Response: The error in Line 201 has been changed into “km²”.

2. There seems to be an issue with the formatting of lines 462 and 474. And, there is a clerical error at the beginning of Line 484.

Response: The errors of formatting of lines 462, 474, 484 have been corrected.

3. Is the content of Lines 550-554 closely related to the research?

Response: The content of Lines 550-554 has been deleted.

4. Why is there no legend for (b) in Figure 5? If three subgraph legends have the same form, it is recommended to consider merging these legends.

Response: The legend has been added to the Figure 5(b).

5. The limitations of the research should be stated. Or did I miss something?

Response: The limitations of this paper have been added on lines of 745-749.

Reviewer 3 Report

In the submitted manuscript, the authors analyzed the effect of optimal scheduling of raw water in a complex urban water supply system in Lanxi City, China. The study period covered 60 years, i.e., from 1960 to 2022. My comments are listed below:

 

1.     The classification of the document, such as whether it falls under the category of an article, case report, or another type, is not specified. This plays a crucial role in evaluating the paper's depth level and impact on the current body of knowledge.

2.     The paper exhibits a deficiency in effectively conveying its novelty, which may be attributed to aninadequate presentation or explanation.

3.     The introduction appears excessively verbose, particularly in the latter part, where the methodology is briefly mentioned. However, the section lacks the necessary scientific rigor.

4.     The presence of redundancies between the introductory section and the subsequent section of the paper is apparent.

5.     In order to improve the clarity of the paper, it is recommended to include a dedicated section outlining the methodology. This section should present the methods in a rigorous scientific manner, incorporating equations where appropriate, and ideally supplemented with a visual flowchart.

6.     Including various unattributed statements in the paper, such as specific information about the study area and claims pertaining to water loss, necessitates appropriate referencing.

7.     Further clarification is needed regarding the justification for choosing the particular study period. It is of utmost importance to provide evidence supported by statistical data that substantiates the inclusion of the flood season within this specific time frame.

8.     The information presented in Figure 4 is unclear, and the figure does not contribute to the report.

9.     The absence of explicit years (occurrences) emphasized in the period under investigation deserves recognition and necessitates consideration.

10.  The utilization of percentage ranges within the document introduces a level of ambiguity, thereby requiring more precise and accurate reporting.

11.  The term 'comprehensive' is employed to characterize the approach; however, the paper exhibits a deficiency in integrating all pertinent aspects, thereby indicating a weakness.

12.  Conducting a more profound analysis is imperative in order to establish the significance of the reported findings in a compelling manner.

13.  The adherence to the established guidelines of the journal is not maintained in the formatting of figure legends and tables.

14.  The in-text citation of figures requires revision. In some instances, it is observed that references to figures are made much before the figures are presented. In contrast, in some other cases, figures are not mentioned in the text.

15.  The paper's reference list needs improvement, considering the comprehensive nature of the topic being investigated.

 

In summary, the paper showcases significant promise in its fundamental concept; nevertheless, its implementation falls short of fully capitalizing on this potential. I highly recommend that the authors undertake a thorough revision of the paper, with the aim of establishing a more profound framework to substantiate both the theoretical underpinnings and practical execution of the concept. By doing so, the report will be able to offer increased value to readers and contribute significantly to the scientific community.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

The paper's English language merits moderate revision, and it might benefit from adopting a more academic writing style. The modification is perceived as advantageous in terms of bringing the paper in line with academic norms, with the objective of improving its overall coherence and professionalism, ultimately enhancing its efficacy as a scientific paper.

Author Response

In the submitted manuscript, the authors analyzed the effect of optimal scheduling of raw water in a complex urban water supply system in Lanxi City, China. The study period covered 60 years, i.e., from 1960 to 2022. My comments are listed below:

1. The classification of the document, such as whether it falls under the category of an article, case report, or another type, is not specified. This plays a crucial role in evaluating the paper's depth level and impact on the current body of knowledge.

 

Response: The type of the document is an article. It has been presented in the basic information of this paper.

2. The paper exhibits a deficiency in effectively conveying its novelty, which may be attributed to an inadequate presentation or explanation.

Response: The novelty of this paper is shown in lines 12-16. And these sentences have been paraphrased to optimize the expression of novelty in the article.

3. The introduction appears excessively verbose, particularly in the latter part, where the methodology is briefly mentioned. However, the section lacks the necessary scientific rigor.

Response: This section provides a detailed discussion of existing research and relevant methods. It is of great value for summarizing the shortcomings of current research.

4. The presence of redundancies between the introductory section and the subsequent section of the paper is apparent.

Response: The content between the introductory section and the subsequent section of the paper has been rewritten. These revisions make the article more concise. The modified content is as follows:

Section 2 introduces the general process of optimizing the dispatching of urban raw water. Taking the Lanxi City as a case study, we establish a mathematical model for the joint optimization scheduling of multiple sources. In Section 3, the rationality of the optimal scheme is analyzed from two perspectives: the optimized scheduling diagram of the main water supply reservoir and the long-term simulation of the water supply process in each water supply zone. Next, the optimal plan is compared with the existing schemes. Section 4 is the conclusion.

5. In order to improve the clarity of the paper, it is recommended to include a dedicated section outlining the methodology. This section should present the methods in a rigorous scientific manner, incorporating equations where appropriate, and ideally supplemented with a visual flowchart.

Response: Section 2.1 provided a general process of optimal dispatching of urban raw water. It is a dedicated section outlining the methodology. The proposed method is an analytical framework that includes problem identification, system generalization, rule formulation, model construction and solution. For specific urban water supply problems, different objective functions and constraint conditions can be set. This requires a case-by-case analysis. Taking Lanxi City as an example, the detailed analysis process provided can serve as a reference for the application of this framework.

6. Including various unattributed statements in the paper, such as specific information about the study area and claims pertaining to water loss, necessitates appropriate referencing.

Response: The social and economic data sources for the research area have been supplemented. The content of lines 203-207 has been changed into “Based on the Statistical Bulletin on the National Economic and Social Development of Lanxi City in 2020 (http://www.lanxi.gov.cn/art/2022/5/26/art_1229637868_59255100.html), the resident population had reached 574,800, the urbanization rate has reached 55.4% and the annual GDP is 40.016 billion yuan”.

The data sources for the distribution map of the research area have also been supplemented. “The elevation data with 30m spatial resolution, downloaded from https://dwtkns.com/strm30m/. The boundary of the China and Lanxi City is obtained from http://bzdt.ch.mnr.gov.cn/”.

7. Further clarification is needed regarding the justification for choosing the particular study period. It is of utmost importance to provide evidence supported by statistical data that substantiates the inclusion of the flood season within this specific time frame.

Response: The simulation period extends from April 1960 to March 2021, totaling 732 months. The study period includes the flood season and the dry season, and the scheduling diagram also takes the flood season into account.

8. The information presented in Figure 4 is unclear, and the figure does not contribute to the report.

Response: Figure 4 has been modified. Figure 4 provides the water demand for each zone, which is the supply volume that needs to be met through scheduling in the case study and is an important component of the model construction.

9. The absence of explicit years (occurrences) emphasized in the period under investigation deserves recognition and necessitates consideration.

Response: Previous studies focused on the water supply scheduling for typical years. In contrast, this paper focuses on optimizing the scheduling rules, which requires the use of long-term data. Through basic long-term simulation and scheduling, the optimal scheduling rules can be obtained, which can be used to solve the water supply scheduling decisions for any typical year.

10. The utilization of percentage ranges within the document introduces a level of ambiguity, thereby requiring more precise and accurate reporting.

Response: The percentages used in the article are used to explain the urban water supply guarantee rate, which is a common expression in water supply scheduling research.

11. The term 'comprehensive' is employed to characterize the approach; however, the paper exhibits a deficiency in integrating all pertinent aspects, thereby indicating a weakness.

Response: The authors accepted the opinions of experts. The term 'comprehensive' of the methods was modified into ‘general’.

12. Conducting a more profound analysis is imperative in order to establish the significance of the reported findings in a compelling manner.

Response: Section 3 analyzed and discussed the results in detail from three aspects: scheduling rules and rationality, simulation of water supply projects in each zone, and comparison of water supply effects with other related scheduling schemes, confirming the role and significance of multi-source joint optimization scheduling.

13. The adherence to the established guidelines of the journal is not maintained in the formatting of figure legends and tables.

Response: Figure 1 supplemented the data source, Figure 3 and Figure 5 modified the legend, and Figure 4 was added.

14. The in-text citation of figures requires revision. In some instances, it is observed that references to figures are made much before the figures are presented. In contrast, in some other cases, figures are not mentioned in the text.

Response: The errors have been corrected. Currently, the index appears first in the text, followed by the corresponding charts.

15. The paper's reference list needs improvement, considering the comprehensive nature of the topic being investigated.

Response: This article lists high and representative references related to the research. The authors have conducted a comprehensive inspection and revision of the formatting of the references.

In summary, the paper showcases significant promise in its fundamental concept; nevertheless, its implementation falls short of fully capitalizing on this potential. I highly recommend that the authors undertake a thorough revision of the paper, with the aim of establishing a more profound framework to substantiate both the theoretical underpinnings and practical execution of the concept. By doing so, the report will be able to offer increased value to readers and contribute significantly to the scientific community.

Response: This article has been thoroughly revised. Specific changes include correcting writing errors, supplementing and updating charts, adding data sources, expressing the novelty of the paper, and supplementing research shortcomings, among others. For detailed information, please refer to the revised version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is well-written, with scientific soundness. It proposes a comprehensive analytical process for the complex water supply system in a number of case studies.

Please find below and attached my line-by-line suggestions for improvement.

1. I suggest rethinking the title. "Research on" is not necessary: MDPI is a scientific journal and the articles are all research-based.

12-13. This statement is not correct. A fast research only in Water journal reveals at least 287 articles related to urban water supply. The sentence needs to be rewritten.

23. I don't understand respectively to what. Please rewrite the sentence to clarify.

26. Please rephrase. For example: ... "to develop optimal multiple water source supply rules that align to the specific characteristics of other case studies."

32. the increment of urban population?

34-35. Please revise syntax.

41. The word "sources" is repeated 4 times in 5 lines. Please revise.

83. New paragraph. Please also enhance the link with the previous statement. From the readers perspective, the author breaches from Zhang et al. to "we". This is confusing.

92. Ibidem. Have the author been working with Zhang et al.? Or did they develop the quantitative analysis based on Zhang's research? Please rewrite to clarify.

103. Please include references to support this statement.

104. Please remove "it is important to note".

118. Redundant.

125. What about Part 1? Also, I suggest to explain the structure of the paper based on the sections of the paper; i.e. Section 2. Materials and Methods, Section 3. Results, etc.

130. Please remove colon.

130. Section 3

133-134. Please revise syntax of this sentence. It misses a subject.

134. Section 4

145. considered... considering, is redundant. Please find a synonym.

193. I believe there is no room for "etc." in the methods section. All methods used should be listed.

203. What is Lanjiang? Another river, a canal, a meander of Lan River?

209. remove "particularly", add "respectively" at the end of the sentence.

210-212. Please state the source of the geostatistical data.

236. Source?

241. From? Please indicate reference.

248. This site should be in the references.

272. Shouldn't this be in the Results section?

371-372. "water supply line" repeats 4 times in two lines. Please rewrite.

383. Please remove one bracket.

419. Missing period.

421-422. Please give this sentence a proper structure, i.e. "The objective of this study is to develop a mathematical model..."

462. Please remove bracket.

463. Missing symbol.

465-470. "water supply" repeats 6 times in 5 lines. Please rephrase or use an acronym (e.g. WS) to avoid repetition.

474. Floating W.

476. Missing symbol?

482. Remove Wh

547-549. Please review this sentence, as two different sentences overlap.

550-551. This seems to be a note for the authors, not to be published. Please revise.

552-554. Ibidem.

606. Remove comma.

692-698. These sentences are disconnected from the previous paragraph and seem to appear out of the blue. Please also revise the syntax or lines 695-698, as they read odd.

745. Missing period.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The quality of English language is OK, but could be improved. I highlighted some excerpts where the syntax is confusing.

Author Response

The manuscript is well-written, with scientific soundness. It proposes a comprehensive analytical process for the complex water supply system in a number of case studies.

Please find below and attached my line-by-line suggestions for improvement.

1. I suggest rethinking the title. "Research on" is not necessary: MDPI is a scientific journal and the articles are all research-based.

Response: The title of this paper has been changed into “Joint Optimal Dispatch of Complex Urban Raw Water Supply: A Case Study of Lanxi City, Zhejiang Province, China”.

12-13. This statement is not correct. A fast research only in Water journal reveals at least 287 articles related to urban water supply. The sentence needs to be rewritten.

Response: The sentence of lines 12-13 has been rewritten “The current research on urban water supply issues and their underlying causes still needs to be further strengthened”.

23. I don't understand respectively to what. Please rewrite the sentence to clarify.

Response: According lines 20-23, the optimal plan derived from this paper is compared to the two schemes. They are the current independent scheduling scheme and multi-water source joint dispatching scheme based on the current dispatch diagram.

26. Please rephrase. For example: ... "to develop optimal multiple water source supply rules that align to the specific characteristics of other case studies."

Response: The sentence of lines 25-26 has been rephrased to “to develop optimal multiple water source supply rules that align to the specific characteristics of other case studies”.

32. the increment of urban population?

Response: The context of line 31 has been change into “the increment of urban population”.

34-35. Please revise syntax.

Response: The context of lines 33-34 has been change into “The contradiction between the supply and demand of water resources for many cities are gradually becoming evident”.

41. The word "sources" is repeated 4 times in 5 lines. Please revise.

Response: The context of lines 35-37 has been change into “including strengthening water conservation, exploiting the potential of local water sources, utilizing water diversion, and optimizing the collaborative scheduling”.

83. New paragraph. Please also enhance the link with the previous statement. From the readers perspective, the author breaches from Zhang et al. to "we". This is confusing.

Response: The context of lines 79-81 has been change into “Zhang et al. focused on the primary control nodes and pipelines within the water network topology and developed a sophisticated water resource allocation model and applied it to the allocation of water resources in Tianjin City in 2020.”

92. Ibidem. Have the author been working with Zhang et al.? Or did they develop the quantitative analysis based on Zhang's research? Please rewrite to clarify.

Response: The context of lines 88-91 has been change into “Additionally, a quantitative analysis to investigate the correlation between the uncer-tainty of water inflow from multiple sources and the regional water security rate was conducted using Tianjin as a case study”.

103. Please include references to support this statement.

Response: The references have been added in the line 99.

104. Please remove "it is important to note".

Response: The context of "it is important to note" has been removed.

118. Redundant.

Response: The context of lines 113-115 has been change into “This paper preliminarily discusses issues, including identifying urban water supply problems and establishing water supply regulations across different districts”.

125. What about Part 1? Also, I suggest to explain the structure of the paper based on the sections of the paper; i.e. Section 2. Materials and Methods, Section 3. Results, etc.

Response: The structure of the paper is described using the expressions of “Section 2, Section 3 and Section 4”.

130. Please remove colon.

Response: The colon of has been removed.

130. Section 3

Response: The context of “Part 3” has been changed into “Section 3”.

133-134. Please revise syntax of this sentence. It misses a subject.

Response: The context of lines 127-128 has been changed into “Next, the optimal plan is compared with the existing schemes”.

134. Section 4

Response: The context of “Part 4” has been changed into “Section 4”.

145. considered... considering, is redundant. Please find a synonym.

Response: The “considered” of line 138 has been deleted.

193. I believe there is no room for "etc." in the methods section. All methods used should be listed.

Response: The purpose of the sentence in lines 183-186 is to demonstrate widely used methods rather than all methods.

203. What is Lanjiang? Another river, a canal, a meander of Lan River?

Response: The “Lanjiang” has been changed into “Lan River”.

209. remove "particularly", add "respectively" at the end of the sentence.

Response: The "particularly" has been deleted. The "respectively" has been added at the end of the sentence.

210-212. Please state the source of the geostatistical data.

Response: The context of lines 203-207 has been changed into “Based on the Statistical Bulletin on the National Economic and Social Development of Lanxi City in 2020 (http://www.lanxi.gov.cn/art/2022/5/26/art_1229637868_59255100.html), the resident population had reached 574,800, the urbanization rate has reached 55.4% and the annual GDP is 40.016 billion yuan”.

According to the latest published literature, websites that involve data sources usually provide them directly, rather than in the form of references.

236. Source?

Response: The data source was added in lines 230-232. “The elevation data with 30m spatial resolution, downloaded from https://dwtkns.com/strm30m/. The boundary of the China and Lanxi City is obtained from http://bzdt.ch.mnr.gov.cn/”.

According to the latest published literature, websites that involve data sources usually provide them directly, rather than in the form of references.

241. From? Please indicate reference.

Response: The website has been added. The context of lines 239-243 has been changed into “Based on statistical yearbooks and bulletins (http://www.lanxi.gov.cn/col/col1229637865/), we have collected significant data points, including permanent population, urbanization rate, GDP, and proportions of industrial structures across different towns and streets. We have also collected data from the seventh national population census of Lanxi City”.

According to the latest published literature, websites that involve data sources usually provide them directly, rather than in the form of references.

248. This site should be in the references.

Response: According to the latest published literature, websites that involve data sources usually provide them directly, rather than in the form of references.

Papacharalampous G, Tyralis H, Doulamis A, et al. Comparison of machine learning algorithms for merging gridded satellite and earth-observed precipitation data[J]. Water, 2023, 15(4): 634.

Zhao N. A Novel Merging Method for Generating High-Quality Spatial Precipitation Information over Mainland China[J]. Water, 2023, 15(3): 575.

De Vera A, Alfaro P, Terra R. Operational implementation of satellite-rain gauge data merging for hydrological modeling[J]. Water, 2021, 13(4): 533.

272. Shouldn't this be in the Results section?

Response: Showing the basic information of urban runoff in Lanxi here is beneficial for model construction.

371-372. "water supply line" repeats 4 times in two lines. Please rewrite.

Response: The context of lines 371-372 has been changed into “the upper limit of operating water level (including normal water storage level and flood control water level), agricultural restricted or ecological restricted water supply line, ur-ban restricted water supply line, and dead water level”.

383. Please remove one bracket.

Response: The error has been corrected.

419. Missing period.

Response: The period has been added.

421-422. Please give this sentence a proper structure, i.e. "The objective of this study is to develop a mathematical model..."

Response: The context of lines 127-128 has been changed into “The objective of this study is to develop a mathematical model using the 'simula-tion-optimization' technique to optimize the scheduling of multiple water sources in Lanxi City.”

462. Please remove bracket.

Response: The error has been corrected.

463. Missing symbol.

Response: The missed symbol has been added.

465-470. "water supply" repeats 6 times in 5 lines. Please rephrase or use an acronym (e.g. WS) to avoid repetition.

Response: The acronym of WS has been used.

474. Floating W.

Response: The error has been corrected.

476. Missing symbol?

Response: The missed symbol has been added.

482. Remove Wh

Response: The error has been corrected.

547-549. Please review this sentence, as two different sentences overlap.

Response: The sentence has been changed into “We utilize the TOPSIS [30] to select the optimal scheduling from Pareto solution set with three objective functions as multiple attribute indicators”.

550-551. This seems to be a note for the authors, not to be published. Please revise.

Response: The sentence of line 550-551 has been deleted.

552-554. Ibidem.

Response: The sentence of line 552-554 has been deleted.

606. Remove comma.

Response: The comma has been deleted.

692-698. These sentences are disconnected from the previous paragraph and seem to appear out of the blue. Please also revise the syntax or lines 695-698, as they read odd.

Response: These sentences of lines 692-698 have been rewritten as “The comprehensive simulations of water supply scheduling were conducted based on the CIS and the MWSJD-CDD. Statistical results of water supply indicators were shown in Table 3. Compared to the CIS, the joint optimization scheduling scheme derived from this paper reduced the total water shortage in the simulation period by 68.04 million m3”.

745. Missing period.

Response: The missed period has been added.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The current version of the manuscript has been improved.

 

It should be noted that even if Figure 5 is similar to Figure 3, Figure 5 should also have a legend when the two illustrations are independent.

Author Response

Comments: It should be noted that even if Figure 5 is similar to Figure 3, Figure 5 should also have a legend when the two illustrations are independent.

Reseponse：The legend has been added to Figure 5, and the compasses have been added to Figures 3 and Figures 3.