General comments: 

The paper is well written and focused. The results should be further developed and discussed on the basis of other socio-hydrological studies (on collective memory, decline of civilizations, governance and conflict over water use). Studies on water-scarce regions can help in the perspective of changing human desires. In particular, I would welcome more descriptive papers, but I must say that the results of this study are of local importance (the editor should take this into account). 

Specific comments:

- How was the subjectivity of the researchers managed during the qualitative analysis? (add in the text);

- line 29 - check the concepts of hard-path to soft-path solutions (I think it would be interesting to add it to the work or quote it)

- Add legend to Figure 1;

- Line 107 - I missed historical information and quotes about the lakes (add);

- Line 170 - is it possible to show this socio-hydrological system in a figure/loop/map?

- Line 171 - what are the eight functions?

- Methodology - perhaps it would be interesting to show the paths through a flowchart;

- Linel 199 - it's worth noting that more than 40% answered that the quality of the water remained the same or they didn't identify anything, a percentage greater than the sum of a little and a lot;

- Line 203 - why have visitors increased?

- Were there differences in perception between different groups of interviewees, such as old residents versus new residents or people with different levels of education?

- Line 210 - characterize hydrology with historical data for the region (precipitation, evaporation, etc.) This could be added to the “study area” item;

- Line 256/257 - are there any federal/state/municipal public policies on land use and occupation or master plans?

- Line 297 - it would be interesting to present the number of cafés, restaurants and parking spaces in the area. The density of these services can influence the social perspective;

- Line 409 - I believe there may be a relationship with collective memory here. Please, if possible, link to this theme;

- Line 427 - Is it possible to make a loop figure with these identified interactions?

- Line 501 - I think the political bias could be explored further. How can the political spectrum influence the conservation policies of these lakes and the environment (for example, the city being run by a left-wing or right-wing politician)?

- Line 625 - Is it possible to add a paragraph of recommendations for the population, public administration or other researchers? 

1. The paper addresses an important issue of how local residents perceive the impact of climate change and what kind of actions they would prefer to cope with the present challenges.
2. The paper uses a triangulation of methods (without using the word triangulation which was surprising to me) combining quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, and stakeholder workshop results. In addition, they processed official documents of several water authorities.
3. The introduction provides a clear and convincing argument for using quantitative and qualitative methods for assessing the public responses to a dramatic decline in water level associated with climate change. However, the introduction is quite long and often redundant stating the main messages several times.
4. The theoretical concept of the study remains fuzzy. The authors seem to base their arguments on the social constructivism school of thought but oscillate between framing the issue in terms of “real” problems and “perceived” problems (Thomas Theorem). Some expressions in the text are complete nonsense: “In this context, the declared hazard of lake level loss shapes and is shaped by perceptions”. This sounds like magic: the water level can certainly not be changed by perceptions. What the authors probably try to say is that the assessment of water decline depends on how observers perceive and evaluate the physical changes that they observe. Later on, they introduce the concept of socio-natural phenomena which emphasize the coupling between natural dynamics and human perception. There is a vast tradition in the social sciences using the concept of socio-ecological systems which is based on the same line of thinking, but this popular concept is not mentioned in the paper.
5. The methodology section includes an impressive list of research methods that have been used to assess attitudes, values, traditions and policy preferences. An interdisciplinary array of research traditions has been included in the study. (ethnographic, survey, stakeholder workshops) However, it was not quite clear to me which of the three research questions was addressed by what methods and how the results were integrated.
6. The results section starts with an overview of what the authors learned about perception. This section is highly dominated by the survey results while the results of the qualitative interviews seems to be almost lost; at least the striking advantage of triangulation combining proportional results from quantitative data with more in-depth-results from the interviews was not adequately delivered. The second section on social structures was informative but confusing in terms of organization. Results from the surveys were mixed with background information on the politics and history of the area (which definitely belongs into section 2.1: Case study description), It also seems quite awkward to switch from perceptions to social history, to administrative governance and back to preferences. All information that is being presented is valuable, but it would need re-organization. I would place the history, the administrative arrangements and the social structure of the residents in the Case Study description and focuses on the empirical results in section 3.2 and 3.3. The description of the discrete choice experiment seemed like an add-on to the study and the relationship to the other results were only briefly mentioned on a rather superficial level.
7. The discussion highlights the main results and tries to infer some major messages from the mixed method approach. This is well done in my view although, similar to the introduction, quite redundant and wordy. What I miss was a comparison of the results with similar studies or interpretative frameworks. The insights that residents are skeptical about newcomers which may challenge their privileges by overusing the finite pool of resources is a common theme in positional economics (F. Hirsh) or group theory in social psychology. The preference for low-cost policies is well documented in the literature on climate change adaptation (for example A. Diekmann). I would advise the authors to add a section on how their results fit into the present status of knowledge about the phenomena that they describe. Where do the confirm what is already known where do they add something new?
8. The conclusions are partially redundant with the discussion. However, if the discussion is more focused on comparing the results with the literature, the conclusions can be kept as they are.
9. The paper needs a thorough language editing (grammatical errors, misleading expressions, and awkward wording).
10. In summary, the paper is a valuable contribution to the field of behavioral studies on climate change adaptation and includes an excellent combination of methods for reaching a convincing triangulation. However, it needs some revisions with respect to organization, precision and integration into the existing body of literature.

General comments

The paper addresses relevant scientific questions within the scope of NHESS, contributing to the understanding of natural hazards and their societal impacts. It presents new data and novel insights, with methodologies that align with international standards. The methods and assumptions are valid, but the description should be improved to ensure greater transparency in the research process. The results are sufficient to support the research questions, and significant insights are drawn from the analysis. While the study provides an explanation of the data, methods, and results, the clarity could be improved to enhance the reproducibility of the research for fellow scientists.

The title and abstract are well-aligned with the content of the paper, providing concise and accessible summaries of the research. The paper is well-structured, with quality figures. Overall, the presentation is clear, the technical language is precise, and the English is fluent and easy to understand for a diverse audience.

The author’s contributions are clearly outlined, however, the credit to prior work is insufficient. While the references are appropriate and accessible, greater acknowledgment of related research would strengthen the scientific merit of the paper. There are several claims regarding the past, current, and future status of the study area that are not supported by references. It is recommended to either provide appropriate sources for these claims (e.g., scientific literature, policy documents, local reports) or clearly describe in the Methods section how this information was obtained.

The study results do not clearly distinguish between findings based on perceptions of current conditions and those concerning to future expectations. It is recommended to clarify this distinction to improve the readability and interpretation of the results.

Specific comments

The title refers to 'socionatural hazards,' whereas the term 'social-ecological hazards' is used in the Abstract section. To improve clarity and coherence, it would be helpful to clarify whether these terms are intended to be synonymous and ensure consistent use of terminology throughout the text.

In the Abstract section the sentences: “The interaction of social-ecological structures with these perceptions was analyzed, as well as the willingness to act, both individually and collectively, to address the challenges.” and “This understanding is based on perceptions of social-ecological hazards and the complexity of perceived responsibilities and willingness to contribute to managing risks.” provide overlapping information.  I recommend to streamline or combine these sentences to avoid redundancy and improve clarity.

The Abstract should mention all four research questions: (1) perceptions of social-ecological change, (2) the social structures that interact with these perceptions, (3) willingness to act and perceptions of responsibility, and (4) local practices for dealing with the challenges. However, only the first three appear to be addressed in the Abstract. It is recommended to include the fourth research question to ensure completeness and alignment with the study's stated aims.

Page 2, lines 43 and 49: I recommended to provide references to support these claims, such as newspapers articles, or press releases, or other relevant sources.  

Page 4, line 102: I recommended to replace 'shared' with 'public,' 'collective,' or 'communal' to enhance clarity and better reflect the social dimensions of the lake space.

Page 4, line 103: I recommended to specify what the self-efficacy refers to in this context to provide a clearer understanding of what individuals are expected to develop self-efficacy in.

I recommended to use different font styles or formatting in Figure 1 to clearly differentiate between the federal state, district, and city names, in order to improve the readability of the figure.

In 2.2.1 Ethnographic methods section, I recommended to specify the number of interviews conducted for each category (neighbourhood representatives, household, and informal interviews) to provide a clearer breakdown of the data collection process.

For 2.2.3 Stakeholder workshops section, I recommended to specify whether the 8 to 10 representatives from the citizens’ initiatives and public authorities participated in the four stakeholder workshops repeatedly or only once. Additionally, I recommend to identify the specific public authority institutions involved and clarify their roles in water management. This will provide a clearer understanding of the stakeholders' engagement and their respective contributions.

I recommended to add the word 'future' in the title of Figure 3 for clarity, to indicate that the perceived challenges or dangers refer to future risks or concerns.

Page 9, line 230: Please expand on the claim that the resident’s scientific community is divided on climate change. Specifically, clarify what this division refers to.

Regarding the question in Figure 4, the phrasing 'There are many different scientific opinions on climate change' is not accurate. The diversity of opinions is not relevant, as the discussion should focus on the scientific findings related to climate change, which are grounded in evidence-based analysis rather than opinions.

I recommended to revise the title of Figure 5 to include the word 'future' for consistency and clarity.

Page 12, lines 291-298: Why are the findings on improved water quality not mentioned as part of the preferences for future changes?

Page 12, lines 279 to 287: the terms 'preference for future changes' and 'essential functions' appear to be used interchangeably. However, these concepts differ both conceptually and temporally—'preference for future changes' refers to desired or anticipated conditions, while 'essential functions' relate to current attributes or roles of the lake. It is recommended to clarify the distinction between these terms and ensure consistent usage throughout the text to avoid confusion.

The sections 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4 provide relevant information on the study site. However, the sources of this information are often not provided. I recommended to include appropriate references or clarify whether this information was obtained through primary data collection or secondary sources. This would strengthen the credibility and transparency of the study.

Page 13, lines 310 to 319: include data on the average population age, income, and household size for both Berlin and Potsdam, along with appropriate references to support the claims that the studied population sample is older, wealthier, and has a larger household size. The demographic information will strengthen the validity of these comparisons.

Table 1 does not provide a clear or understandable description in the first column. I recommend improving the table description to enhance clarity. Additionally, the meanings of AIC and BIC should be clarified, and the symbols *, **, and *** need to be explained.

Page 21, line 522: what does CI stands for?

In the Discussion section, I recommend to provide information on the uncertainty and limitations of the collected data. This could include potential sources of bias, sampling limitations, and any factors that may affect the reliability or generalizability of the results.

In the Conclusion section, I recommend to highlight the most important insights that directly address the four research questions. This will provide a clear and concise summary of the study’s findings, ensuring that the key takeaways are easily accessible to readers.

I recommend to add a description of the survey questions and the questions asked during the workshops to the Supplementary materials. This will allow readers to understand the data collection methods and the specific topics addressed in the study.

Typing errors

Page 6, line 149: "...codes were grouped into thematic fields..." to “with codes grouped into thematic fields”

Page 20, line 480: "...they wanted to create awareness that you can't just go straight to the lake' (stakeholder representative)." to "..."you can't just go straight to the lake." (stakeholder representative)".

Page 20, line 482: "...the aum is not to prohibit..." What is aum?

Page 23, line 566: "...responsibilities should be more clearly distributed between citizens, administration and politics." To "...between citizens, administrative bodies, and political decision-makers."