Historical Water Supply System of the City of Brno—Social-Environmental Consequences
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The English should be improved.
- Some Figures were not clear, please revised them. Like Figure 2, 10, 15, etc.
- Some more references were needed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we are sending our responses to your comments, and we thank you very much for your time.
With best regards
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The current version of your manuscript does not present scientific research. The target should be the international reader and at least the method presented should be applicable to other situations. The link to novelty is weak. The authors do not explain well, where is the novelty of the distinguished case study? The conclusion is not sufficiently described. It is more like a summary of information, which can be read in previous chapters. Therefore my overall recommendation is to reject the manuscript from publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we are sending our responses to your comments, and we thank you very much for your time.
With best regards
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is not a research article but rather a review paper. Most of the data used in this paper are from other literature, which is of course not wrong. Most of the text is a historical review of Brno water system with a very limited author's own impact ( I guess that maps on figure 10 are the author's original input). However, the paper is in some way valuable, because adds in some way to socio-hydrology. I encourage the author to read more about it and treat this paper as the beginning of a deeper analysis. If You connects your already existing data with for example information about citizen disease in this period it will be a really interesting analysis. Fig. 1. Could you indicate the direction of flow on this map and the city of Brno. I guess that it is a half city at the bottom of the map, but you have to understand that not everyone can find it without a clear indication. Maybe it will be good to rethink the position of this figure in the text. There is a lot of information about water system supply but the explanations are under the figure. I suggest moving this figure at least after chapter 2.1. Row 89-90. It is not very convenient to put the information like .. if you want to know more move to chapter 3.1. I think in this chapter you should put all necessary information to avoid sending the reader to some further chapters. Row 131. I do not agree with this statement. You do not have to apply models for all your research. It depends on what you investigate. Rows 131- 138 do not add any important information. You do not have to prove why you use a model approach and why it is good to do modeling. A model is usually is just a tool to confirm/predict something. You use the model because you do not have empirical data.Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we are sending our responses to your comments, and we thank you very much for your time.
With best regards
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
My decision is to accept the paper, but only as a typical case report (case study), as certainly it is not a research article,
And for potential readers, it would be confusing, if it will be published as the "article", as it brings nothing new for a scientific society,
