History of Using Hydropower in the Moravice River Basin, Czechia
, Hana Skokanová 1 and Marta Šopáková 2,3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting article presenting in a comprehensive and detailed way the changes of the hydropower facilities in one selected river basin (Moravice) in NE Czechia. The strong parts of the article are: the detailed inventory of all HPFs in different time periods and the attempt to link the transformation of the number and functions of the hydropower facilities with the broad socio-economic and political background. However, there are some issues with the paper which should be further elaborated by the authors. First of all, the article is rather descriptive than problematic – it is not stated what is the scientific problem that this article tries to solve and what is the research gap that the authors want to cover. The main aims are to make the inventory of the water facilities for different time periods, to demonstrate the (dis)continuity of production and its varied typology and to assess to what extent the development of WPFs was influenced by change in the socio-economic and national structures of the population after World War II. The first two aims are descriptive (although they also refer to numbers and basic statistics) and the potential of the third one, which could give a deeper scientific insight into the analysed processes, was not fully used in my opinion because the article presents just one case study (one catchment) and it lacks broader context of comparative studies based on the literature review, which should be addressed in the Discussion part. In its current form it is potentially interesting only to a limited number of readers and not to a broader, international audience. Especially the chapter 4.6, which presents several local case studies with many historical and technical details might be of less interest to the international readers (although such information would be perfect as a part of a regional monograph). I would suggest to change the structure of the article – instead of presenting the description of the selected hydropower facilities in chapter 4.6, the authors should rather discuss their results in the broader context based on thorough literature studies, and presenting in which way their findings are similar or different to the results of other authors in different regions/ countries and similar/different socio-economic and political context. Only then the readers will understand if the Moravice basin represents a typical or exceptional example of the presented processes. Additionally, the Conclusion part needs to be changed as well. In its current form it substantially repeats the information from the previous parts of the paper, so it is rather a summary of the research and not the conclusion, which should also highlight the added value of the paper and what new the paper brings to the already existing rich literature on changes of land use and industrial/ water facilities in various historical periods.
I would also suggest that some of the descriptive parts of the paper, containing numbers, would be presented as graphs or diagrams – this will make the results more clear and better readable. It will be also very helpful if the authors present in a graphical way the changes of the WPFs along with the alternating historical periods of socio-economic and political constraints – for example indicating both types of changes using time arrow and conceptual models or diagrams. This will show the interlinkages between these two groups of changes in a more readable way instead of describe them only in the text.
The English must be checked as there are some expressions and words which seem not to fit to the context of the sentence and there are also some spelling mistakes and technical issues (i.e. missing spaces, lack of translation of Czech word, eg. Table 4).
There are also some more detailed remarks to the paper:
Line 55 – “This trend stopped at the end of the 20th century” – it should be explained what was the reason for this change. In general, I have the impression, that the authors focus much more on the changes related to the end of the WWII and pay less attention to the most recent period related to the fall of communism and development of market economy – this is a very important factor of recent changes but it is somehow less stressed in the paper.
Lines 107-139 (especially Table 1) – Where there any Germans who stayed after the WWII or were they all expelled by 100%?
Line 147 Table 2 – It is not clear how the stable cadaster was used for comparative analysis as it is in much larger scale comparing to other analysed maps. Was the accuracy of the maps calculated by the authors or is it based on literature sources?
Line 160 – more information should be added on the procedures applied to analyse the maps in GIS program – what program and what functions were used to make the comparative analysis possible?
Line 164 – the database of investigated facilities should be available as a supplementary material
Line 173 – Who created the database of 1953? Was it also the Ministry of Finance?
Line 204 – Small hydropower plants are not marked on the map
Line 211 Table 3 – authors divide the river into upper and lower part but in the description of the study area it was divided into three parts (also middle) – it should be consistent throughout the entire paper. The sums of both upper and lower parts should be also provided as another line in the table – the comparison between the time periods will be easier then.
Line 214 Figure 3 – It would be also valuable to add a map (or a graph) showing what kind of WPF were changed into another type and which stayed unchanged.
Line 254-272 – I wonder if such detailed information on engine types are really necessary for the main scope of the article. I suggest to shorten this part, highlighting only the proves for constant technological development of the water plants.
Line 309 Table 5 – This explanation is not clear: x-not existing, existing
Line 347 – Try to be more precise as far as the time periods are concerned. The second part of the 20th century has witnessed many diverse trends of socio-economic and political processes and it is unclear to what exact periods and transformations the authors refer here.
Line 557-560 – This is an interesting issue and it should be more developed in the discussion and conclusion parts. This might be one of the added values of the paper if it is further elaborated in the context of the obtained results.
Author Response
We have chosen to keep the chapter 4.6 as we believe it serves as an example of the impacts on specific production facilities, showing in detail the variety of developments that absolute numbers and general trends overlay.
We have placed the example of the Moravice river basin in the broader socio-economic context of the Czech Republic and its border areas (the so-called Sudetenland). On the basis of an analysis of the relevant literature dealing with the subject matter and general socio-economic characteristics, we made a comparison with the development in neighbouring countries (Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Spain) and defined in what ways the development in the Moravice basin is exceptional or, on the contrary, comparable with the development in other regions (see new chapter 4.7).
The tested graphic presentation of the results was not concise and accurate. To improve the interpretation of the results, a separate map of hydropower plants was added.
The text has been proofread. More than a hundred changes have been made to the text.
Line 55 – “This trend stopped at the end of the 20th century” – it should be explained what was the reason for this change. In general, I have the impression, that the authors focus much more on the changes related to the end of the WWII and pay less attention to the most recent period related to the fall of communism and development of market economy – this is a very important factor of recent changes but it is somehow less stressed in the paper.
OK, edited and completed.
Lines 107-139 (especially Table 1) – Where there any Germans who stayed after the WWII or were they all expelled by 100%?
OK, edited and completed.
Line 147 Table 2 – It is not clear how the stable cadaster was used for comparative analysis as it is in much larger scale comparing to other analysed maps. Was the accuracy of the maps calculated by the authors or is it based on literature sources?
OK, edited and completed.
Line 160 – more information should be added on the procedures applied to analyse the maps in GIS program – what program and what functions were used to make the comparative analysis possible?
OK, edited and completed.
Line 164 – the database of investigated facilities should be available as a supplementary material
The device database was not added based on the authors' decision. Its main information value is already used in the article, maps and tables.
Line 173 – Who created the database of 1953? Was it also the Ministry of Finance?
OK, edited and completed.
Line 204 – Small hydropower plants are not marked on the map
OK, A separate map of hydropower plants was created (Figure 5).
Line 211 Table 3 – authors divide the river into upper and lower part but in the description of the study area it was divided into three parts (also middle) – it should be consistent throughout the entire paper. The sums of both upper and lower parts should be also provided as another line in the table – the comparison between the time periods will be easier then.
The division of the river basin into two parts (upper and lower) has been used throughout the entire paper. Table 3 has been amended so that the sums are shown separately for the upper and lower parts of the river basin.
Line 214 Figure 3 – It would be also valuable to add a map (or a graph) showing what kind of WPF were changed into another type and which stayed unchanged.
Unchanged types of WPFs include only some hydropower plants that were established before 1950. A separate chapter is devoted to these objects. Other objects have undergone a change of use.
Line 254-272 – I wonder if such detailed information on engine types are really necessary for the main scope of the article. I suggest to shorten this part, highlighting only the proves for constant technological development of the water plants.
OK, the table with detailed information was deleted.
Line 309 Table 5 – This explanation is not clear: x-not existing, existing
The previous table has been deleted, thus the table has been renumbered to 4.
The explanation has been modified: x - none (= a hydropower plant did not exist), existing - in the map but not specified (= a hydropower is shown on a topographic map, but no specification is available). The upper index U indicates that the hydropower is not shown on the topographical map, but because we know of its existence in the given periods, the hydropower plant has been included in the list.
Line 347 – Try to be more precise as far as the time periods are concerned. The second part of the 20th century has witnessed many diverse trends of socio-economic and political processes and it is unclear to what exact periods and transformations the authors refer here.
OK, edited and completed
Line 557-560 – This is an interesting issue and it should be more developed in the discussion and conclusion parts. This might be one of the added values of the paper if it is further elaborated in the context of the obtained results.
OK, edited and completed
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript contains interesting results of changes in the number and specialization of water-powered facilities in the Czech Republic over more than two centuries. I have only a few recommendations that I hope will improve the content of the work and increase interest in it from the international reader.
- It is highly desirable to compare the obtained results (at least qualitatively) with the neighboring regions of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and, possibly, Poland. I believe that the trends identified are not unique to the Moravice River basin. Without this comparison, your good manuscript looks somewhat incomplete.
- It would also be helpful to describe the limitations and uncertainties of your study in a separate (sub)section. This will show the reader what problems you encountered in the study more clearly.
- The names of all the settlements with the water-powered facilities you considered in the individual examples (the village of Karlovec; Žimrovice; possibly also others) should be displayed in Figure 1.
- Instead of “Moravice Basin”, please write “Moravice River basin”. Check the title (and maybe the text) of the manuscript.
- I believe that the list of your keywords can be expanded. However, there is no need to use the same words as in the title of the manuscript. This reduces the effectiveness of the keywords.
- The English language of the manuscript needs slight improvement (especially concerning the use of articles). There are some minor typos.
Author Response
The manuscript contains interesting results of changes in the number and specialization of water-powered facilities in the Czech Republic over more than two centuries. I have only a few recommendations that I hope will improve the content of the work and increase interest in it from the international reader.
It is highly desirable to compare the obtained results (at least qualitatively) with the neighboring regions of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and, possibly, Poland. I believe that the trends identified are not unique to the Moravice River basin. Without this comparison, your good manuscript looks somewhat incomplete.
We have placed the example of the Moravice river basin in the broader socio-economic context of the Czech Republic and its border areas (the so-called Sudetenland). On the basis of an analysis of the relevant literature dealing with the subject matter and general socio-economic characteristics, we made a comparison with the development in neighbouring countries (Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Spain) and defined in what ways the development in the Moravice basin is exceptional or, on the contrary, comparable with the development in other regions (see new chapter 4.7).
It would also be helpful to describe the limitations and uncertainties of your study in a separate (sub)section. This will show the reader what problems you encountered in the study more clearly.
The names of all the settlements with the water-powered facilities you considered in the individual examples (the village of Karlovec; Žimrovice; possibly also others) should be displayed in Figure 1.
The names of the most important settlements have been added to the map in Figure 1.
Instead of “Moravice Basin”, please write “Moravice River basin”. Check the title (and maybe the text) of the manuscript.
OK, edited and completed
I believe that the list of your keywords can be expanded. However, there is no need to use the same words as in the title of the manuscript. This reduces the effectiveness of the keywords.
The list of keywords has been expanded to better cover the issue.
The English language of the manuscript needs slight improvement (especially concerning the use of articles). There are some minor typos.
The text has been proofread. More than a hundred changes have been made to the text.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been substantially improved. I appreciate especially adding the new chapter (4.7) which provides a wider context to the research. It certainly makes the paper more interesting to a broader international public. I will only suggest to change the title of this chapter - instead of "Summary" it should be "Discussion". Additionally, in the title of the Figure 5 it should be added that the numbers presented in the map refer to the Table 4.
Author Response
Thank you for the positively evaluated changes to the article.
The title of chapter 4.7 has been changed to "Discussion".
Figure 5 - added text: The numbers refer to those in Table 4.
