Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Using a GIS-based approach, the authors evaluated the suitability of the land in the Al Baha region to develop urban green spaces. The chosen method is suitable for this task, and the research process is well planned. The manuscript's structure is logical, and the tables and figures are good quality. Nevertheless, the manuscript in its current form is not of adequate quality because the text is very difficult to read, and contains many errors and sentence fragments. Thus, it isn't easy to interpret what the authors had in mind in many cases.

The authors do not have a clear goal with the article, so the content of the individual chapters is inappropriate. An excellent example of this is the presentation of the results. The beginning of 4th „Results” section is not differing from the introduction to the study area. Defining the slope values and elevation above sea level in various districts is not considered a result. The presentation of the additional application possibilities of the data used is not the authors' results either (TPI in lines 297 to 299). Such a detailed textual analysis of the input maps used for the calculations is beyond the scope of the study. It would be enough to draw the readers' attention to a few things that greatly influenced the final results. The actual results of the research start with the description of the determination of the input data’s weights.

It is also unfortunate that the text is full of figures and geographical names that are completely unknown to the international reader. (From lines 126 to 129: tribal borders do not need to be listed; international readers do not know them and do not give any valuable information to them.) In an international article, it would be advisable to describe and generalize the most important results of the research, and it is unnecessary to get lost in the details.

The authors mentioned that they have ground observations and these agree with the results of their calculations. However, despite this, there are certainly contradictions, and the limitations of the methodology could be formulated in connection with them.

The English of the manuscript should be greatly improved. In the 18th line (in the abstract), for example, the authors incorrectly wrote „agriculture sector”, which is agricultural sector, correctly. Also, in the 18th line, the authors use a meaningless term: „housing income group high map” (maybe the authors mean the map showing the territorial location of high-income people). The reader can find not just meaningless terms in the manuscript but later some sentences too, such as the one in the 75th line: „Recently, [21] developed InVEST 3.8.7 model.” This sentence does not mean anything and does not connect to the previous and following sentences in its present form. In the 23rd line (also in the abstract), the authors wrote: „the southern part of the study is not suitable…”, which is correctly study area.

In line 177: please name the institution/organization or persons who created the map (like in the case of the SRTM data).

Author Response

Ref: Ms. No. forests-1953791

Title: Assessing Green Infrastructures Using GIS and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: The Case of Al Baha region (Saudi Arabia)

Journal: Forests MDPI.

Author: Raid Shrahily

Co-authors: 

Alsharif Mohammad, Babikir Mobarak, and Abdulrhman Ali Alzandi

Dear Editor Prof. Dr. Timothy A. Martin

We are grateful for the helpful feedback from the reviewers that helped us improve the quality of the manuscript. We carefully considered all comments and modified the manuscript accordingly. The changes are shown in the annotated copy (highlighted in blue). Herein, we explain how we revised the paper point-by-point based on those comments and recommendations. 

Below are the answers:

Sincerely,

 

 

Response to Reviewer # 1

1. Using a GIS-based approach, the authors evaluated the suitability of the land in the Al Baha region to develop urban green spaces. The chosen method is suitable for this task, and the research process is well-planned. The manuscript's structure is logical, and the tables and figures are good quality. Nevertheless, the manuscript in its current form is not of adequate quality because the text is very difficult to read, and contains many errors and sentence fragments. Thus, it isn't easy to interpret what the authors had in mind in many cases.

Reply and revision: Thank you so much for your positive comments, we agree completely with the reviewer and as suggested, the paper has been revised accordingly

 

2. The authors do not have a clear goal with the article, so the content of the individual chapters is inappropriate. An excellent example of this is the presentation of the results. The beginning of 4th „Results” section is not differing from the introduction to the study area. Defining the slope values and elevation above sea level in various districts is not considered a result. The presentation of the additional application possibilities of the data used is not the authors' results either (TPI in lines 297 to 299). Such a detailed textual analysis of the input maps used for the calculations is beyond the scope of the study. It would be enough to draw the readers' attention to a few things that greatly influenced the results. The actual results of the research start with the description of the determination of the input data’s weights.

Reply and revision: We agree completely with the reviewer and as suggested. These parts are included in the ‘’Databases preparation’’ section for more understanding of the spatial variability of each input, and this is good for the readers. Where the discussion part started with ‘’description of the determination of the input data’s weights. Thank you so much for this excellent observation.

3. It is also unfortunate that the text is full of figures and geographical names that are completely unknown to the international reader. (From lines 126 to 129: tribal borders do not need to be listed; international readers do not know them and do not give any valuable information to them.) In an international article, it would be advisable to describe and generalize the most important results of the research, and it is unnecessary to get lost in the details.

Reply and revision: We agree with the reviewer and as suggested. The tribal borders have been removed from the ‘’Study area’’ section

4. The authors mentioned that they have ground observations and these agree with the results of their calculations. However, despite this, there are certainly contradictions, and the limitations of the methodology could be formulated in connection with them.

Reply and revision: as suggested by the reviewer. The authors mean ‘’ground observations’’, the current tourist green areas, and urban famous forests. The sentence has been improved. Thank you.

5. The English of the manuscript should be greatly improved.

Reply and revision: We agree completely with the reviewer and as suggested, the English has been improved

6. In the 18th line (in the abstract), for example, the authors incorrectly wrote „agriculture sector”, which is agricultural sector, correctly. Done, thank you
7. Also, in the 18th line, the authors use a meaningless term: „housing income group high map” (maybe the authors mean the map showing the territorial location of high-income people). Done, thank you
8. The reader can find not just meaningless terms in the manuscript but later some sentences too, such as the one in the 75th line: „Recently, [21] developed InVEST 3.8.7 model.” This sentence does not mean anything and does not connect to the previous and following sentences in its present form. Done, thank you
9. In the 23rd line (also in the abstract), the authors wrote: „the southern part of the study is not suitable…”, which is correctly study area. Done, thank you

 

10. In line 177: please name the institution/organization or persons who created the map (like in the case of the SRTM data).

Reply and revision: The author himself who elaborated the map, but used STRM was downloaded from the mentioned website

Thank you so much for this discussion and these observations, all errors are modified based on these comments.

We hope that these revisions improve the paper such that all reviewers now deem it worthy of publication in “Forests ". 

Sincerely Yours,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript "Assessing Urban Green Spaces Using GIS and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: The Case of Al Baha region (Saudi Arabia)".

The topic is relevant to the aims of the journal and the approach and results are interesting.

However, to make this article publishable, I suggest major revisions.

In particular:

- The work done probably refers more to an increase in green infrastructures (GI) rather than a punctual inclusion of urban green spaces (because perhaps 'urban' is not always mentioned within your article). I would therefore hypothesise a change in the name of the title and a revision of the introduction based more on the theme of green infrastructures. Of course the work and focus on UGS can remain, as part of GI.

- Mention ecosystem services in the introduction, i.e. the benefits that ecosystems (including urban ones) provide to humans. In particular, it is important to mention articles that refer to investigations on different scales. By way of example, here are some (more general and more specific) articles: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126949; https://doi.org/10.3390/f11010025; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104072

- The description and subdivision of the entries in the text (and in Figure 6) would need to be more detailed: Poor Fair; Good; Excellent.

- In the Discussion there is a Figure (the numbering is probably wrong, because there are two Figure 6s). I would move this figure to the results, explaining it, and not to the Discussion section.

- The Discussion section should be greatly expanded, including references to similar research carried out around the world, trying to highlight differences or similarities in approaches and/or results. 

Author Response

Ref: Ms. No. forests-1953791

Title: Assessing Green Infrastructures Using GIS and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: The Case of Al Baha region (Saudi Arabia)

Journal: Forests MDPI.

Author: Raid Shrahily

Co-authors: 

Alsharif Mohammad, Babikir Mobarak, and Abdulrhman Ali Alzandi

Dear Editor Prof. Dr. Timothy A. Martin

We are grateful for the helpful feedback from the reviewers that helped us improve the quality of the manuscript. We carefully considered all comments and modified the manuscript accordingly. The changes are shown in the annotated copy (highlighted in Green). Herein, we explain how we revised the paper point-by-point based on those comments and recommendations. 

Below are the answers:

Sincerely,

 

Response to Reviewer # 2

1. Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript "Assessing Urban Green Spaces Using GIS and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: The Case of Al Baha region (Saudi Arabia)".

The topic is relevant to the aims of the journal and the approach and results are interesting.

Reply and revision: Thank you so much for your positive comments. we agree completely with the reviewer and as suggested, the paper has been revised accordingly

2. The work done probably refers more to an increase in green infrastructures (GI) rather than a punctual inclusion of urban green spaces (because perhaps 'urban' is not always mentioned within your article). I would therefore hypothesise a change in the name of the title and a revision of the introduction based more on the theme of green infrastructures. Of course the work and focus on UGS can remain, as part of GI.

Reply and revision: We agree completely with the reviewer and as suggested. The prediction process has been done for the year 2047, and the author by mistake write 2037.  The mistakes have been corrected on the paper. In addition, for the predicted built-up area, the high area can explained because the road map is included as input during the training of the MLP process, this is why influence prediction and increase the built-up area. Welcome, if the reviewer has another suggestion. Thank so much for this excellent observation

3. Mention ecosystem services in the introduction, i.e. the benefits that ecosystems (including urban ones) provide to humans. In particular, it is important to mention articles that refer to investigations on different scales. By way of example, here are some (more general and more specific) articles:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126949;

https://doi.org/10.3390/f11010025;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104072

Reply and revision: As suggested by the reviewer. The four papers have been added to the introduction section. Thank you for these excellent papers

Another hand, an excellent question ‘’ How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?” was answered by Costanza et al. (2017), based on a review of twenty years of ecosystem services publications. The research concludes that the essential contributions of ecosystem services to the nature and sustainable well-being of humans must be at the core of the main change necessary in economic theory and practice to achieve a societal conversion to a sustainable and desirable future. The systematic review documented by Pinto et al. (2022) regarding the relationship between UGS and Ecosystem services (ES) and well-being dimensions in Europe, China, the USA, and South Africa. The survey revealed that food security received the least attention, where good social relations and health (physical and mental) were the most investigated well-being dimensions. The use and perception of residential greenery in Berlin (Germany), the example of the healthy green living room at one’s doorstep have been suggested and examined by Säumel et al. (2021). The results revealed that new houses with Greenery areas are highly appreciated by residents. Where the residents benefit daily from the residential green spaces instead of visiting the parks once a week, which explains that the residential greenery can be the social tissue, especially in so-called ‘disadvantaged’ neighborhoods that increase the social belonging among neighbors. In Turin Neighborhoods (Italy), Battisti et al. (2019) Assessed Green Areas, Ecosystem Services (ES), and Socio-Demographic Characteristics (SDC). Based on the Species-specific Air Quality index, the results show that the agricultural land uses and water bodies in the northern part are the reason for higher values of ES and SDC than in the central-southern part, where improving the quality of green spaces in those neighborhoods could have great effects on liveability. The authors conclude that increasing citizens’ well-being is one of the future management and planning strategies through urban greening consideration

 

4. - The description and subdivision of the entries in the text (and in Figure 6) would need to be more detailed: Poor Fair; Good; Excellent

Reply and revision: We agree completely with the reviewer and as suggested, this section has been added to the discussion part.

5. In the Discussion there is a Figure (the numbering is probably wrong, because there are two Figure 6s). I would move this figure to the results, explaining it, and not to the Discussion section.

Reply and revision: We agree completely with the reviewer and as suggested, the figure has been moved and discussed in results section

6. The Discussion section should be greatly expanded, including references to similar research carried out around the world, trying to highlight differences or similarities in approaches and/or results.

Reply and revision: We agree completely with the reviewer and as suggested, some papers have been cited. The highlighted differences, approaches, and/or results between this study and other studies can be seen in the introduction. Thus, if it is included in this section it will be duplication. Thank you so much for your comment and suggestion.

Thank you so much for this discussion and these observations, all errors are modified based on these comments.

We hope that these revisions improve the paper such that all reviewers now deem it worthy of publication in “Forests ". 

Sincerely Yours,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accept the authors' answers. After the revision, the quality of the manuscript improved, and I consider it suitable for publication. However, in my opinion, one further change is still needed. Figure 2 is on three different pages, but its title is only visible under the first part. This is not a reader-friendly solution since the reader has to constantly scroll to find out what is on the figure. Instead, I recommend treating Fig 2. as three separate figures by the authors, with separate captions.

Author Response

Ref: Ms. No. forests-1953791

Title: Assessing Green Infrastructures Using GIS and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: The Case of Al Baha region (Saudi Arabia)

Journal: Forests MDPI.

Author: Raid Shrahily

Co-authors: 

Alsharif Mohammad, Babikir Mobarak, and Abdulrhman Ali Alzandi

Dear Editor Prof. Dr. Timothy A. Martin

We are grateful for the helpful feedback from the reviewers that helped us improve the quality of the manuscript. We carefully considered all comments and modified the manuscript accordingly. The changes are shown in the annotated copy (highlighted in blue). Herein, we explain how we revised the paper point-by-point based on those comments and recommendations. 

Below are the answers:

Sincerely,

 

 

Response to Reviewer # 1

1. I accept the authors' answers. After the revision, the quality of the manuscript improved, and I consider it suitable for publication. However, in my opinion, one further change is still needed. Figure 2 is on three different pages, but its title is only visible under the first part. This is not a reader-friendly solution since the reader has to constantly scroll to find out what is on the figure. Instead, I recommend treating Fig 2. as three separate figures by the authors, with separate captions.

Reply and revision: Thank you so much for your positive comments, we agree completely with the reviewer and as suggested. The figures have been updated.

Thank you so much for this discussion and these observations, all errors are modified based on these comments.

We hope that these revisions improve the paper such that all reviewers now deem it worthy of publication in “Forests ". 

Sincerely Yours,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors greatly improve the manuscript.

However, two points remain well-explaned:

- please specify whic are the ideas/parameters you selected to define the categories (poor, good,..)

- please a further improvement of the discussion section is still needed.

Author Response

Ref: Ms. No. forests-1953791

Title: Assessing Green Infrastructures Using GIS and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: The Case of Al Baha region (Saudi Arabia)

Journal: Forests MDPI.

Author: Raid Shrahily

Co-authors: 

Alsharif Mohammad, Babikir Mobarak, and Abdulrhman Ali Alzandi

Dear Editor Prof. Dr. Timothy A. Martin

We are grateful for the helpful feedback from the reviewers that helped us improve the quality of the manuscript. We carefully considered all comments and modified the manuscript accordingly. The changes are shown in the annotated copy (highlighted in Green). Herein, we explain how we revised the paper point-by-point based on those comments and recommendations. 

Below are the answers:

Sincerely,

 

Response to Reviewer # 2

The authors greatly improve the manuscript.

Reply and revision: Thank you so much for your positive comments. we agree completely with the reviewer and as suggested, the paper has been revised accordingly

However, two points remain well-s explained:

1. Please specify which are the ideas/parameters you selected to define the categories (poor, good,..)

Reply and revision: As suggested by the reviewer. this part was added to the methodology section

   For the identification of the GI area, four classes were proposed based on the implantation of the equation below on the ArcGIS:

                                          (4)

   Where  explains the normalized weight of the parameter,  refers to the weight of the i class of the parameter, where m is the number of parameters and n is the number of class within a specific parameter. Where for each grid the was calculated

2. Please a further improvement of the discussion section is still needed.

Reply and revision: Thank you so much for your positive comments. we agree completely with the reviewer and as suggested, this part has been improved.

Thank you so much for this discussion and these observations, all errors are modified based on these comments.

We hope that these revisions improve the paper such that all reviewers now deem it worthy of publication in “Forests ". 

Sincerely Yours,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf