Design and Verification of a Simple Approach to Brownfields Categorization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work is interesting, however, it is important to focus on some aspects. In my reading, I would like to find empirical evidence or literature review that later helps to understand the results In each idea there should be a bibliographic citation, which is missing in the text. In the conclusions or discussion it would be important that they talk about the method they used to achieve the objectives, and contrast their results with empirical evidence
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your insightful comments. We have tried to check and add to the literature. Suggest methodology and add a more detailed description in the conclusion. We have used the change mode in word to edit the text, so the edits should be obvious. We hope that we have improved the paper to make it acceptable.
Reviewer 2 Report
Good afternoon. Comments, questions and recommendations can be found in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your questions and comments. We have tried to improve the text according to them. Answers to specific questions are in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General Comments:
The manuscript deals definition and assessment of an approach to brownfields categorization based on the ABC(D) model in Czech Republic. The manuscript is clear, and the topics developed in the manuscript are well structured. The title corresponds to the structure of the manuscript and the content of the different sections. The contribution to the current state of the art in brownfields categorization is significant. The data and methods used are well described. Although I appreciated the work of the authors, some minor caveats are mentioned below.
Specific Comments:
- P1, L10: The ABC(D) Model acronym should be totally described when first mentioned.
- P1, L33: “(…) and above all it must be very quickly evaluated”. Authors may wish to give a more detailed discussion on this argument.
- There are some English writing issues that should be improved and therefore a review by an English corrector is suggested (i.e., pag. 1, line 34, “(…) In the last many years (…)”; pag. 2, line 56, “(…) The CABERNET network is the author of the now traditionally used "ABC model (…)"; pag. 3, line 104, “(…) which we present in the section result in this article, we dare to claim that our method is a functional and effective (…)”; pag. 4, line 135, “(…) o make it clear how big the problem is and how to solve it.”; pag. 9, line 277, “(…) To assess the correctness of the classification into category A better (…)”; pag. 11, line 328, “(…) The analysis next focused on sites from category C.”; pag. 11, line 342, “(…) The last group composed of sites from category D.”; pag. 11, line 357, “(…) Already the word “brownfield” as a term has several ways of understanding and defining the term [36] and always fits the local context [XX].” - Furthermore, this reference is lacking).
- P2, Line 54; P8, Line 245: The CLARINET and MSID acronyms have already been described.
- P2, Line 85: The title of Table 1 is lacking.
- P3, Line 103: “(see subchapter1)” ??
- P5, Line 189: Authors may wish to give a more detailed discussion on the “selected quality indicators”.
- P8, Line 234: Assessment of the status of the brownfields assessed in 2020 or 2017??
- P11, Line 366: Authors may wish to give a more detailed discussion on Figure 5.
- For better understanding of the methodology, I suggest inserting a flowchart.
Author Response
Thank you for your very thought-provoking and helpful comments. In the text we have tried to respond to all your comments. Detailed responses to each comment are provided in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
