Evaluation of River Health and Human Well-Being in the Heihe River Basin Using the SMI-P Method: A Case Study of the Zhangye City

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Comments 1: Please indicate precisely what novelty is contained in Figure 2 in relation to previous studies by other scientists. Which specific parameters are used for the first time in the analysis?

Response 1: We thank the reviewers for their comments. The evaluation system of “happy river” in this study includes 21 indicators of river supply capacity, river operation safety, river ecological health, river culture, and river and lake management level, in addition to the public's satisfaction with the ecological management of rivers and lakes, etc. Compared with other scientists' research in this field, the indicators of human attributes in the socio-economic system are not quantitatively described. Compared with other scientists' studies in this field, which basically quantitatively analyze the resource attribute indicators, environmental attribute indicators and ecological attribute indicators in the natural ecosystem, there is a lack of quantitative description of the human attribute indicators in the socio-economic system, such as the public's satisfaction with the construction of the “Happy River” and the water safety issues mentioned in this study. Since the construction of “Happy River” is a complex, fuzzy and comprehensive multi-indicator evaluation process, it is necessary to build an all-round evaluation system for social, economic and humanistic indicators. This is the novelty of this study compared with other scientists' studies. The modification of the related content has been reflected in the manuscript (Lines 145-170). 

 Comments 2: How are the individual Levels assigned? How are the limit values for the individual Levels determined? Please explain this issue.

Response 2: Many thanks to the reviewers for their comments.C1 Refer to SLZ 552 2012 Water Use Evaluation Guidelines.C2 According to internationally recognized standards, water resources per capita of less than 3,000 cubic meters is considered as mild water scarcity, water resources per capita of less than 2,000 cubic meters is considered as moderate water scarcity, water resources per capita of less than 1,000 cubic meters is considered as severe water scarcity, and water resources per capita of less than 500 cubic meters is considered as extreme water scarcity.C3 Refer to SLT 793-2020 River and Lake Health Assessment Technical Guidelines. SLT 793-2020 Technical Guidelines for River and Lake Health Assessment.C4 is determined with reference to SLT 793-2020 Technical Guidelines for River and Lake Health Assessment.C5 and C6 are determined with reference to GB50201 Standard for Flood Control.C7, C8 and C9 are determined with reference to SLZ 738-2016 Guidelines for Evaluation of Construction of Water Ecological Civilization Cities.C10 is determined with reference to the “14th Five-Year Plan”. “Development Plan for Urban Sewage Treatment and Resource Utilization” the sewage treatment capacity of cities and counties basically meets the needs of economic and social development, and the sewage treatment rate of counties reaches more than 95%.C11 Refer to 2025 when the utilization rate of reclaimed water in cities with water shortages at prefecture level and above nationwide reaches more than 25%.C14~C21 Questionnaires, subjective evaluation.

Comments 3: Happiness Level Classification seems to be subjective. Why were these Levels adopted (Table 3)?

Response 3: We are very grateful to the reviewers for their comments. We refer to the criteria for classifying happy rivers in Zuo Qiting's paper “Happy River Evaluation System and Its Application”: according to the size of the IHR value of the river, the happy river index is divided into 7 classes. Among them, 1 indicates complete happiness, 0 indicates complete unhappiness, and the other grades are in between. According to the spacing of 0.2, the happy river index is divided into 5 grades, which are basic happiness (0.8<IHR<1), happier (0.6<IHR≤0.8), close to unhappiness (0.4<IHR≤0.6), more unhappy (0.2<IHR≤0.4), and basically unhappy (0<IHR≤0.2). It should be pointed out that the evaluation of the happy river is relative, there is no absolute happiness and unhappiness, and the evaluation system is mainly used to evaluate the relative situation of the happy river in different regions and at different times, and to identify the key constraints.

Comments 4: What specific actions influence the continuous improvement of the values of the analyzed indicators? Please explain this issue.

Response 4: Many thanks to the reviewers for their comments. The Water Resources Bulletin and the Water Resources Development Yearbook are not published at the same time, which results in incomplete data for the latest indicators and prevents simulations for the latest year. The Happy River and Lake Construction was proposed in 2019, and the analysis of indicator data prior to 2019, and beyond, is not very meaningful. The construction of happy rivers and lakes is a new water governance concept based on a series of water resources protection, water environment and water ecology governance, and water security construction process incrementally proposed, in the preliminary stage, the matching and adaptation coordination of each system is not yet known.

Comments 5: In practice, the possibility of limiting the diffuse emission of pollutants into the river is very difficult. Is it possible to achieve a satisfactory level without significantly reducing pollutants released into the river and thus significantly limiting urbanisation processes, especially near rivers?

Response 5: Many thanks to the reviewers for their comments. It does not. When the local city stagnates and does not develop for a long time, people will intuitively and significantly reduce their sense of well-being, belonging, and fulfillment of living in that city due to the orderly advancement of the urbanization process in the surrounding area (the contradiction between growing material and cultural needs and unbalanced and insufficient development).

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Comments 1: The title should better reflect the core themes of the paper. I suggest revising it to: Evaluation of River Health and Human Well-being in the Heihe River Basin Using the SMI-P Method: A Case Study of Zhangye City. This proposed title is more concise and direct, focusing on the evaluation of river health and human well-being, which are the primary aspects discussed in the study (for instance, the term "Happy River," while central to the paper, may not be self-explanatory for readers unfamiliar with this concept). The title I propose also simplifies some terminology and avoids unnecessary jargon, making the study more accessible to a wider audience.

Response 1: Dear reviewer 2, Thank you very much for your valuable revision suggestions. The authors also very much agree with your views and suggestions, meanwhile, the authors have revised the title of the manuscript.

 Comments 2: Figures and Figure Titles: While the figures are helpful in illustrating the concepts and findings of the study, some of the figure titles and captions could be more descriptive. The descriptions of the figures lack of explanations, in my opinion, the figures should be self-explained. Specific comments on figures will be provided in the section below.

Response 2: Dear reviewer 2, Thank you very much for your valuable revisions. The authors have made the suggested changes in the manuscript.

Comments 3: Figure 1: The figure should be rearranged as its current layout is difficult to follow. Additionally, the caption lacks sufficient explanation. It can be improved by clearly indicating what the coloured areas represent in parts (b) and (c). Please also add bar scales to allow the viewer to directly perceive the dimensions. Here is my suggestion:

Response 3: Many thanks to the reviewers for their suggested revisions. The authors have revised Figure 1 in the manuscript as suggested (Line 128).

Comments 4: Figure 2: The caption of Figure 2 needs improvement, as the current version does not clearly explain the schematic representation. Please also provide a general description of what C1–C21 represent to enhance clarity.

Response 4: Many thanks to the reviewers for their suggested revisions. The authors have revised Figure 2 and its description as suggested in (Lines 146-173).

Comments 5: Table 1: The font size of Table 1 should be reduced to match the size of the body text or smaller for better readability and consistency. And also the Remark should appear out of the table “M is the average value of this index in the whole province”.

Response 5: Many thanks to the reviewers for their suggested revisions. The authors have revised Table 1 and its contents as suggested (Lines 175-177).

 Comments 6: Table on line 140: It is unclear whether the table on line 140 is a new table or a continuation of Table 1. Additionally, I was unable to locate a Table 2 in the manuscript. Please clarify this in the document.

Response 6: Many thanks to the reviewers for suggesting changes. The table in line 140 is a continuation of Table 1 (repeating the title line). In addition, the authors have revised the ordering of the tables throughout the text.

Comments 7: In section 2.3.3 please change (1), (2), (3), (4) for (a), (b), (c), (d) given that there are more numbers in the numbering.

Response 7: Many thanks to the reviewers for their suggested revisions. The authors have made the suggested changes in the manuscript (Lines 187-223).

Comments 8: Figure 3: The caption of Figure 3 needs improvement. Please refer to my previous comments regarding figure captions for guidance on how to enhance clarity and provide necessary details.

Response 8: The comments of the reviewers are greatly appreciated. After a unanimous discussion among the authors, it was concluded that a partial repetition of the description of the study methodology occurred in Figure 3 and in the manuscript, and in order to provide the reader with a clearer understanding of the content of this study and the logic of the full text, the authors decided to delete the figure, and the corresponding location in the text was modified.

Comments 9: Why Table 2 appears after Table 4?

Response 9: Many thanks to the reviewers for their suggested revisions. The authors have revised the ordering of the tables throughout the text.

Comments 10: Figure 4: What do the colours in Figure 4 represent? If they do not have any specific meaning, please consider changing them to greyscale or a single colour for consistency. Additionally, please clarify what C1–C21 refer to, and improve the figure caption to provide clearer explanations.

Response 10: Many thanks to the reviewers for their suggested revisions. The colors in Figure 4 represent the weights of the evaluation indicators of C1-C21, and in order to better distinguish the values between the indicators, the authors believe that the colors are clearer. In addition, C1-C21 is clarified in detail in Table 1.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

A work with a new methodology, dedicated to a special river basin. Good job!

Response：

We are very grateful to the reviewers for recognizing the work of the authors, and the authors will continue to deepen the research in this field and strive to obtain more and more valuable research results.

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Comments 1: The abstract should be reformulated.

Response 1: Comments from the reviewers are greatly appreciated. The authors have reworked the abstract of the manuscript as described in the manuscript (Lines 9-30).

Comments 2: The focus and objectives of the investigations are not well described in the introduction.

Response 2: Comments from the reviewers are greatly appreciated. The authors have reworded the introduction of the manuscript with respect to the focus and objectives of the survey, as described in the manuscript (Lines 99-112).

Comments 3: Literature review is poor and needs improvement and update by recently published papers related to the Oasis cities.

Response 3: The reviewers' comments are much appreciated. The authors have rewritten the introduction of the manuscript with respect to the literature review as described in the manuscript (Lines 63-79).

Comments 4: Study area is poorly presented.

Response 4: Many thanks to the reviewers for their comments. The authors have made corrections at the corresponding places in the manuscript (Lines 63-79).

Comments 5: Section 2.2 is unclear.

Response 5: Many thanks to the reviewers for their comments. Section 2.2 has been reworked by the authors (Lines 132-138).

Comments 6: Figure 2 needs more details and explanation.

Response 6: Many thanks to the reviewers for their comments. The authors have revised Figure 2 (Line 173).

Comments 7: References for Table 3.

Response 7: Many thanks to the reviewers for their comments. The authors have added references to Table 3 (Line 179).

Comments 8: Figure 3 is unclear.

Response 8: The comments of the reviewers are greatly appreciated. After a unanimous discussion among the authors, it was concluded that a partial repetition of the description of the study methodology occurred in Figure 3 and in the manuscript, and in order to provide the reader with a clearer understanding of the content of this study and the logic of the full text, the authors decided to delete the figure, and the corresponding location in the text was modified.

Comments 9: Section 3.3 is incomplete and needs improvement.

Response 9: Many thanks to the reviewers for their comments. The authors as well as section 3.3 were revised (Lines 283-304).

Comments 10: Limitation of the study in the conclusion.

Response 10: Many thanks to the reviewers for their comments. The authors elaborate on the limitations of this study in the conclusion of the manuscript, with the intention that this study may provide a theoretical reference for evaluating the construction of happy rivers in rivers in arid zones or in oasis rivers (Lines 393-410).