Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please, remove from the abstract the acronyms you have not define yet (Line 24).

Line 31; remove “,” after “21st”.

The introduction needs to be revised and new references added. For instance, bioeconomy (line 39) has only one reference.

Line 39-40; rephrase the sentence, as it is incoherent.

Line 54; please give few examples of the “irreversible environmental changes” you are referring to.

Line 101; what is the purpose of the reference no. 24 here?

Line 115; add a full stop at the end of the sentence.

Line 125; would replacing parentheses with brackets be more suitable here?

Line 176; the selection of the indicator cannot be based on somebody else’s literature review. Delete this and add your references.

Line 182; is the Ref. 42 correctly used here?

Line 199; “set as” should be replaced with “set to”. Also, check lines 354 and 464.

Make sure to refer to all tables within the manuscript.

Line 249-251; please, rewrite the sentence to be clearer.

Line 265-266; only one reference is here, but the authors mention “numerous studies”. Please, add more references.

Line 275, could “authors’” be omitted?

Line 283; “Methods and Data” should be replaced with “Materials and Methods”.

Line 285; “rise to” should be replaced with “rise of”.

Line 288; please be specific about the references that were “cited in the Introduction section”.

Line 305-311; I suggest the recommendations for future studies to be placed at the end of the Discussion section.

Line 316; delete “it” from the sentence.

Line 362; “could” should be placed after “the Czech Republic”.

Line 366; please, write a short note on Visegrad Group.

Line 371-374; rewrite the sentence, specify the model, explain the figure clearly.

Line 388; would “policy” instead of “document’s” be more appropriate?

Line 389; add “off” before “32”, and “,” after “2030”.

Line 397; is the source defined correctly?

Line 406; suggestion: change “under all models’ scenarios” for “in all scenarios”.

Line 435; isn’t this the Discussion section?

Line 444; “also” could be omitted.

Line 481; this should be “Table 5”.

Paragraphs from line 471 to 489 could be moved to the Results section.

The conclusion needs to be revised.

Line 491; add “that” before “the GDP”. Also, “more complete” should be replaced with a more appropriate adjective.

Line 494; what is the meaning of “formulaic” here?

Line 497; is “above 2°C”correct? Could it be “by more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels”?

Line 507-508; could “regarding” be replaced with “with respect to”?

 Line 510-511; could “is being met” be replaced with “could be met”?

Be consistent with the acronyms throughout the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

 

it is a very nice paper related to Sustainability and valuable for Czech Republic. The layout and content is clear and clean. My general comments are the following: 

1. Check again the references.
2. Check the units
3. Check the tables

Also I would like to read a few lines on the global scale at the conclusions.