Lessons Learned from Gastroenteritis Outbreaks Associated to Wild Swimming in the German–Dutch Vecht Watershed During Hot Summers: What Measures Can Be Taken?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI find the article interesting as it addresses the issue of water quality and human health. The subject matter is consistent with the profile of Water. The layout of the article is appropriate, with individual chapters/subchapters forming a logical continuation of the whole. I recommend the article for publication after taking into account the following comments.
1) I cannot find the purpose of the research in the article. Please define it clearly so that its implementation can be assessed later on.
2) The authors mention different forms of activity: a person swimming directly in the water (swimming) has a different contact with water than a person practising other forms of sport (canoeing, stand-up paddling). Was an analysis carried out in different activity groups? How does this affect the results obtained?
3) The methodology for estimating the number of swimmers is subjective. However, later in the article, the authors provide specific figures (an average of 33,000 per year).
4) I do not understand the time frame of the study: first, the authors write: ... In 2019–2021, on very hot days, scattered groups of tourists could be seen along the Regge and Vecht rivers... Then, later in the article, there is information: ... In total, in the warm years 2018–2020, between 29,000 and 37,000 people swam in the rivers, streams and canals of the Vecht basin.
5) The authors refer repeatedly to heat waves (atmospheric), but this is general information. Please elaborate on this phenomenon in the area under analysis.
6) In addition, water temperature (including heat waves affecting water) is important for water quality and the existence of pathogens. This phenomenon is well described in the literature. Please refer to these iss ues in relation to the results obtained.
7) What are the climate forecasts for further changes in the region in question? Please cite the relevant literature.
8) Conclusions section. Referring to the literature is inappropriate here. This section should contain the most important points of the article, its limitations and further prospects.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study titled “Lessons learned from gastroenteritis outbreaks associated to wild swimming in the German-Dutch Vecht watershed during hot summers. What measures can be taken?” is exploratory case study research which focus on wild swimming in the German-Dutch Vecht(e) catchment in which several outbreaks of stomach and intestinal problems (gastroenteritis-GE) have occurred with people swimming in streams and rivers that carry sewage treatment plants effluent and raw sewage. The study discusses the local situation regarding wild swimming, the risk of infection for wild swimmers and the policy implications in terms of toleration of bathing, public information and regular monitoring of pathogens and outbreaks. The authors also assessed the possible measures which need to be carried out to facilitate policy making and manage the biological risks of wild swimming in general.
The structure of the manuscript was well thought out and presented. Below are some of my comments on the manuscript:
Introduction: this section was general well written, but I would like to see a detailed exploration of studies in Germany and other parts of Europe and the globe in which similar case study have been carried out to ascertain the impacts of GE on those that practice wild swimming.
Materials and methods: this section was well written, but I would like to see a table showing some of the literature you consulted and their brief findings here. Also, I didn’t see data analyses section as you reported some statistics in the results section. Please check and include them.
Results: This section is okay, but all the results presented were not outlined on how they were arrived at, please check my comment on data analyses above.
Discussion: There seem to be a disconnect between the discussion and the actual results presented. I would like to see the discussion tied to the key findings. Then, there should also be elements of arguments for or against your findings. While the policy angle and the need for government actions to curtail the negative impacts of wild swimming on the health of the swimmers in the study area, there also need to be a connection on what the actual results you got with other studies within the study area and beyond-even though such findings are peripheral.
Overall, the manuscript was well written. Kindly check some of syntactic errors in your next submission. See the attached document for other very few comments that may need your attention.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments are attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
