Response to referee comments 

First of all my apologies for taking a rather long period to respond to your valuable comments. I had to finish working on a chapter of my PhD dissertation before I had the time to look at your comments in detail and draft a response. I am very thankful for the positive and constructive feedback on my article, and I hope to answer to this in a clear and satisfying manner. This will be done for each individual comment, inlcuding the minor ones. 

Major comments: 

1. The topic of "urban drought" may be new to many readers, and this needs to be better

introduced. Is it really an "urban drought" (having impacts within the city walls, as it is

said at one instance) or is it "urban information" on drought (or "urban responses" to

drought - would the city respond to a rural drought)? What do these indices capture?

What is actually relevant, and why? This might also relevant for future climate (an aspect

which is a bit missing). Just a few more word on that would be appreciated. 

Response: Many thanks for this very insightful comment. I will add a more elaborate explanation of ‘urban drought’ in the introduction, where I explain that it concerns the impact of droughts on cities, taken from urban documents regarding the impacts and responses. This is also the main quality of the HSDS, which captures drought severity in terms of the impact and responses by the urban government/populace.

2. Generally I am surprised by the large differences between the two cities in all aspects

of droughts (almost no coincidence of drought years, different seasonality etc.). This

seems to be an important finding that should be better discussed. For that, it would be

good to show a map with the two cities and the hydrogeography. Are they in the same

river catchment? Is the land use surrounding the two cities similar etc.

Response: The differences between both cities are sometimes indeed surprising, in particular because of the close proximity to one another. I will add additional information to the section regarding the ‘outcomes’ (p.6-8), primarily with regard to specific geohydrological qualities. The differences in these qualities can, in part, provide an explanation for increased or reduced drought-impact, hence the variety in instances reported for both cities. A hydrographic map will also be added to provide additional information, also with regard to the location of both cities within the eastern Netherlands.

3. The index method, HSDS etc. is well ecplained including a critical discussion.

Nevertheless, as reader I would like to know whether (in the literature) the HSDS concept

has been cross-validated or cross-compared. This might also be relevant for the discussion

of the comparison with other data sets (and methofds) in this paper. Just thinking about

the evidence in this paper, I could imagine that, e.g., the way in which navigability is

affected may vary a lot from river to river, so this part of the definition will capture

differences between cities).

Response: The HSDS-index has not been validated nor cross-compared, and I believe this goes beyond the scope of the article. Therefore, I have decided not to incorporate this. 

4. L. 199: Only nine coinciding years seem to be very little, but given the low number of

drought years in total it is arguably still highly significant. Here I would expect more

information: Are the most severe droghts in one city at least HSDS-2 events in the other

one? Just some more quantitative evaluation would be interesting. How likely is it that two

cities with same meteorological drought (probably this is almost always the case for the

two cities) have different hydrological drought? (Again, questions of that sort might be

relevant also for future climate). 

Response: This is indeed a very good question. As the information from the available documentary sources only indicates impact-based instances of drought (which can be arranged according to the HSDS) it cannot be easily assumed that a severe drought in one city would have at least a moderate outcome in the other if this is not mentioned explicitly in the municipal sources. Once again, this could be due to more favourable geohydrological conditions in one city compared to the other, or better preparedness of the available wells and other water systems. Further clarification with regard to this aspect has been added in the paragraph regarding the outcomes (p.6-8). This can explain why a drought event in one region can have varying impacts across cities, depending on geo-hydrological conditions, water management etc, which is, indeed, relevant for future climate and drought-analysis as well.

5. Comparisons: I appreciate the three comparisons performed, although the results are

perhaps a bit disappointing at first. It would also be interesting to look at the mutual

comparisons of these three data sets. 

Response: Although this would be interesting, I believe that such a comparison would go beyond the scope of this article (and perhaps deserves an article on its own, which I might want to work on at a later stage). 

6. Overall the paper is relaively long. When revising the paper, please observe length.

Response: I understand that the paper is rather lengthy for what it wants to convey, so I have cut words with regard to specific details, such as the details about dysentery (p. 11, L. 304-310). Within the ‘data’ paragraph (p.3-4), I have also shortened the information with regard to the sources, and I plan to do more word-cutting as I will further revise my article. My idea is also to cut appendix 1 entirely and provide it as a separate, digitally available data sheet. This is an easy option and the latter alone would also cut 4 pages.

Minor comments 

The Figures seem straight from Excel. Please draw them more neatly and with better xaxes. This is sometimes hard to understand (narrow lines, odd years, no tickmarks, etc.).

Brush up the figures.

Response: I agree, and I will polish up the figures accordingly so that they will be more understandable and neat for final publication

L. 49: "This is a trend.." What trend (unclear)?

Response: In hindsight, the use of the word ‘trend’ is inappropriate and unnecessary, as it refers to the general pattern of precipitation (deficit). Therefore, I will rephrase this sentence to prevent further confusion. 

 L. 220: agricultural drought (only 1): Is this also within the city limits or are these reports

referring to the rural surroundings?

Response: I will add additional information regarding this difference, which explains that it concerns  agricultural activity in the cities’ hinterlands that is reflected in the market prices of certain foodstuffs (p. 7, L. 220-222).

Fig. 2, Zutphen: Looks visually inhomogeneous. Is this due to the source density? (if so,

perhaps mark in the figure)

Response: This has to do with the difference in source density between Deventer and Zutphen. In the first graphs I used the drought years of Deventer and Zutphen combined in both graphs, which led to the inhomogeneous picture in the graph. I have altered this by redrawing both graphs in fig. 2 for Deventer and Zutpen, using only drought years pertaining to each city, which provides a more clear image of the distribution of different drought-types

Fig. 2: Are these droughts per decade? This is not clear.

Response: It concerns individual drought years. This will be added as part of the sub-text for fig. 2.

Fig. 3: The difference in seasonality is just huge! 

Response: This can be explained in terms of source density, as there is generally more info for Deventer compared to Zutphen for certain periods, but also the fact that drought impacts can be spread unevenly across seasons. A severe autumn drought, for example, could be felt more during the winter months, and a spring drought could lead to negative results in the summer. This aspect will  receive more attention in the ‘outcomes’ paragraph (p. 6-9).

L. 255 (and others): Do not start title with a number

Response: I will change these titles (L.255, 266, 275, 284, 292) to ‘The year 1669’ etc. 

van Loon et al. 2016 is not in the reference list

Vörösmarty et. al., 2004 is not in the reference list

(there might be more; I have not checked systematically)

Response: I have noted the inconsistency and errors in the referencing. I will go through this again as part of the revisioning process.

Response to referee comments 

First of all my apologies for taking a rather long period to respond to your valuable comments. I had to finish work on a chapter of my PhD dissertation before I had the time to look at your comments in detail and draft a response. I am very thankful for the positive and constructive feedback on my article, and I hope to answer to this in a clear and satisfying manner. This will be done for each individual comment, including the minor ones. 

This is an interesting paper showing local resilience to drought in 2 dutch cities during early modern times.

Main critic is that it is rather unclear if the study aims at climatological research or something else.

IF the author wants to pinpoint climatological impact on society, I think he has some more precise exercise to do.

Response: My primary aim with this paper is to investigate the impact of drought on urban societies and their reactions, so it falls within the scope of historical climatology/climate history. It was not the aim to provide an intricate climatological long-term analysis of drought, as the sources (or rather the lack of) are not adequate to do so. This could receive more clarification in the section regarding the data. 

I am not familiar with the Netherlands - and not at all w the local area of deventer and zutphen. My first thought to the result of more droughts in 2nd half of 18th century (row 244-245) was that maybe there had been major drainage of the land in the late 17th and early 18th century? 

Response: The area around Deventer and Zutphen does not belong to the parts of the Netherlands where major drainage projects had taken place during the early modern period. However, both cities had differing geohydrological conditions, which will be addressed in the revised version as part of the ‘outcomes’ part.

49-51. Unclear sentense. Even substituting 'trend' to 'fact'. The subordinate clause cause confusion. OR the sentence is out of context.

Response: In hindsight, the use of the word ‘trend’ is inappropriate and unnecessary, as it refers to the general pattern of precipitation (deficit). Therefore, I will rephrase this sentence to prevent further confusion.

90-94. The author wants to prove that data from the Netherlands are good, because Spanish data are. That may be so, since NL was subject to Spain during part of the period, but it is not obvious. 

Response: This is indeed a point that requires clarification. The reference to these studies was done with regard to the use of similar methods of research in northern and southern Europe with the use of similar types of documentary sources, not with regard to the data itself. I will clarify this as part of the revisioning process L. 90-94.

93. Reference Escayol & Barriendos, 2021. Is not in reference list. 

Response: This concerns ‘Gorostiza, Escayol & Barriendos, 2021’. I mistakenly did not add Gorostiza to the reference, but I will correct this in the revised version.

109 "...daily resolutions and can be...": delete "and". 

Response: Agreed.

109-110. "This series... provided..." THESE series. And maybe present tense? 

Response: Agreed, I will check again the use of past and present tense in the article and make the necessary alterations.

111. "...was required". Made?

Agreed. This will be altered to ‘had to be carried out’ to make the sentence more clear. 

114. New paragraph between "drought. Firstly..."

Response: I do not believe that it is necessary to make a cut here to create an additional paragraph. 

114-133: maybe this should be in "Methodology"?

Response: This is a very good comment, and I believe it would be good to move these lines at the end of the ‘methodology’ section.

158-185. Move into "Data"? Or make a new chapter "theory/previous research"?

Response: I do not believe it is necessary to create an entirely new chapter with regard to the information in these lines, as it concerns an explanation of the applied methodology based on previous studies with a similar approach/method.

191. Table 1 is good, but maybe the text 185-190, could support it a little bit better? Or that the table was more embedded in the text?

Response: Agreed, I will take this into account during the revisioning of the article. 

I think the text would improve if 207-214 salvisberg, 2020; garnier, 2019) was moved to 195: just below "4. Outcomes" or put into "Theory". 

Response: Agreed. This change will be implemented in the revised version by moving this part of the text just below ‘outcomes’.

199. ...coinciding years. Hydrological droughts... New paragraph Hydrological... 

Response: I can see why a cut to a new paragraph would make sense here, but I do not believe it is highly necessary to do so for the improvement of the paper. 

Figure 1: Question! No year has insufficient data? (This is just a question. No criticism.)

Response: This question is understandable, and will be explained in the revised version within the ‘outcomes’ section. The quick answer is that none of the data I found falls within this category, hence the absence.

228-232: move to above 224. (Then all text concerning figures come before the figure). 

Response: Agreed.This will be altered in the revised version.

254 "...has been restricted the most..." -> "...has been restricted to the most...

Response: Agreed.This will be altered in the revised version.

257 "...and pumps the" -> "... and pumps in the"

Response: Agreed.This will be altered in the revised version

260. New paragraph "For Zutphen, references..." ?

Response: I do not believe it is necessary to start a new paragraph here, given its already compact size.

270. New paragraph "In Zutphen, the 1733..." ?

Response: I do not believe it is necessary to start a new paragraph here, as it is already quite compact. 

295 "...mentioned as the great spring drought led to..." -> "...mentioned as "the great spring drought", which led to..." 

Response: Agreed.This will be altered in the revised version.

300-304: too much about dysentery. Kill your darlings!

Response: A few words can certainly be cut with regard to this aspect, as it indeed received more attention than necessary.

307. "likely the main drivers..." -> "likely to be the main drivers..."

Response: Agreed.This will be altered in the revised version.

350. "... between drought below average..." -> "... between drought and below average..."

Response: Agreed.This will be altered in the revised version.

351-354: what do modern data show when comparing drought to temperature (for zutphen & deventer)? Maybe you should include such a comparison in this paper?

I.e. compare drought today w british temperature.

378-382. Very good!

Response: Many thanks!

400. Where is figure 8?

Response: Thanks for pointing this out. It concerns a figure that I decided not to add to the article right before submission. The reference will be removed in the revised version.  

 439. "[None] ...had a disturbing rather than a crippling effect..." -> "[none]..had a crippling effect but  rather a disturbing effect.."  [this is not very good. But certainly

Response: Agreed. This will be changed accordingly in the revised version.

NONE of the droughts had a crippling effect...]

Response: Agreed. This will be changed accordingly in the revised version.

454-455. "A next step..." this sentence seem out of context. Write some more!

Response: Agreed. This will be changed accordingly in the revised version.

457-464: an awful lot of "the". I think text'd be better if cutting out most of the "the:s"

Response: Agreed. I will keep this in mind when revising the article. 

465 "...during consequent months" -> "... for following months". (Or possibly "consecutive")

Response: Agreed. This will be changed accordingly in the revised version.

466. "...data /-/ displays.." -> "...data /-/ display.."

Response: Agreed. This will be changed accordingly in the revised version.

525 appendix.

Response: The exact nature and meaning of this comment is unclear to me. Hopefully, clarification is possible.

1615... "deventer to issue a an ordinance" -> "deventer to issue an ordinance"

Response: Agreed. This will be changed accordingly in the revised version.