Protection of Water Distribution Networks against Cyber and Physical Threats: The STOP-IT Approach Demonstrated in a Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper structure can be improved in "Introduction" and "Materials and Methods". "Introduction" has more than 50% about project description. Project description could be open up in later section. "Materials and Methods" could win by adding visuals (graphs) that align RAET tools. It is not clear why two risk events were selected. Why those two? Are there more? In general, there are tools available that evaluate water network models in terms of critical component (ex. Bentley WaterGEMS). Therefore a better explanation is needed about selected risk events. A visual of a case-study model (EPANET model, even as a schematic) could give a better understanding for the reader what and how a risk scenario is simulated which causes (for example) the disconnection of a network part. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper summarizes the work resulting from the STOP-IT project and describes the analysis of particular scenarios considering the risk-manager framework developed in the project.

Although the novelty might be limited (since the paper summarizes the work in a project, which has already been published in journals, conferences and deliverables), the paper is well-written and the topic is interesting. Moreover, the manuscript provides a clear and a rapid view of the project (and its outcomes) to the reader. From the point of view of this reviewer, it would be interesting if authors provide a specific “Future work” section, describing next steps on the research based on the outcomes showed in the manuscript. In addition, a brief description on the organization of the manuscript at the end of the Introduction would be appreciated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx