PONE-D-24-09140Study on water resources carrying capacity based on Pressure-State-Response modeling：An empirical study of the urban agglomeration in Central Yunnan, ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 24 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sivasankar Koppala

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"Thanks to all those who helped in the manuscript writing process. We thank the reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions. Thanks to the National Natural Science Foundation of China for funding this project."

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3.Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a)        Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b)        State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c)        If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d)        If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

   a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) 1to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

    b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

The MS titled "Study on water resources carrying capacity based on Pressure-State-Response modeling：An empirical study of the urban agglomeration in Central Yunnan, China" tries to assess the WRCC of an urban system in China. I can't justify the scientific merits of the current version due to multiple comments explained below. Therefore, I try to mention them to improve the quality of the work with a major review decision.

I see five major comments followed by examples of minor corrections.

(1)

WRCC based on the origins of "carrying capacity" concept can have a rigorous physical meaning (e.g., maximum population can live in an area sustainably). Therefore, to address WRCC in this way multiple methods and approaches have been developed.

The other way of looking at WRCC and CC is using system of indicators. Although acceptable, this way of estimating WRCC is used mainly for the data scarce situations.

My main comment is why the authors, while having sophisticated input datasets, choose the system of indicators?

For a physical approach of looking at WRCC, please take a look at below references (as a few examples but not limited to):

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153038

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.01.006

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/67485/

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.110

In my opinion, the manuscript didn't explain enough why the current specific method was chosen, and the text limits the readers just to a group of publications, with high similarity to the current manuscript.

Also, at the end of MS for discussing the results, it doesn't connect the readers to the physics behind the limits on WRCC.

On the other hand, if the system of indicators is still the chosen method, please take a look at alternatives in the following book and explain your choice.

Applied Panarchy: Applications and Diffusion across Disciplines (Page 59 to 68).

(2)

There is a high level of math and system of equations for the methods and analysis. However, I think the main objective is lost. The main goal is to assess the capacity of the land based on its resources. For a successful use of equations, I think the steps need more clear interpretations. For example, take a look at these two examples:

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7618100

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15079

(3)

The PSR, is one of the analytical framework to assess a complex SES systems. In a few sentences explain the existence of others. Also, the more comprehensive way is to use DPSIR framework. Please justify why the MS narrow it down to PSR framework. The following reference can help

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269404

(4)

Please use the standard and acceptable terminology for the concepts. For example "overload" in Line 287 should be replaced with "overshoot". Or, "the state of carrying" in Line 284 is not a correct term. Please rephrase. Similar examples exist in the MS (Lines 311, 325, 333 and multiple other places).

(5)

In Lines 258-260 the MS says "water-saving technologies in agriculture, adopting sprinkler irrigation, tube irrigation and other irrigation methods."

This argument is not true. The irrigation technologies can save water at the farming scale (small scale). However, at the watershed scale and for the large scale planning, the promotion of irrigation technologies increase the net water use duo to rebound effect. The irrigation technologies improve the water productivity. Please take a look at the FAO report on this. Also, for the scentific basis of this argument, take a look at following references:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.020

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.08.001

Besides the above major comments, there are comments on the writing (major and minor).

- The English writing of the MS can be improved significantly.

- Avoid using "etc." in the MS.

- Line 352, do you mean "case study" by the word "research object"?

- Line 371: what do you mean by "which makes Kunming better than the other four cities and states"?

- Line 358: by the word "development", do you mean "growth"?

- Line 384: the word "dimention" is unnecessary.

- Lines 391-393: Why it was not possible to do it in the current study? The use of big data for WRCC is applied before, and the spatio-temporal evolution of the system has been performed internationally and in China. Please mention them in the literature review, and for this paragraph be more specific about the future directions.

Kind regards

Reviewer #2: Water resources carrying capacity is an important indicator to measure the sustainable development of cities and regional water security.The research constructed a water resources carrying capacity evaluation index system based on the PSR model, and evaluated the water resources carrying capacity by using the set-pair analysis method and the obstacle diagnostic model,which has important reference significance. The following suggestions are put forward, which can be changed according to the author and the understanding of the article:

1.The introduction should present the research question through the research synthesis, which leads to a description of the research and research innovations. The research question is not clearly stated in the introduction of the thesis, and the presentation of the research question and the description of the innovation should be improved.

2.It is recommended that the basis for the selection of the indicators for the evaluation of the carrying capacity of water resources in Table 1 be explained.

3.In the discussion section, targeted policy recommendations are made based on the specific situation of each city (state) in the Central Yunnan Urban Agglomeration, the reasons for the differences in water resources carrying capacity, and the main obstacle factors, in order to improve the practical guidance of the article.

4.In lines 296-297：According to the results of Fig. 2 and Table 6, the subsystem of water resources carrying capacity state in Kunming should be between the mild overload and severe overload state, and the description is problematic.

5.The language of this manuscript needs to be improved.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Study on water resources carrying capacity based on Pressure-State-Response modeling：An empirical study of the urban agglomeration in Central Yunnan, China

PONE-D-24-09140R1

Dear Dr. Wang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sivasankar Koppala

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The manuscript evaluates the WRCC of the UACY in China's plateau region, taking into account economic, social, resource, environmental and ecological factors, and explores the temporal and spatial evolution of the WRCC of the UACY, which provides data support for the formulation of water resources related policies and the rational scheduling of water resources in the plateau region. The manuscript has innovative and practical meaningful. It is recommended that this paper should be accepted for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********