Multi-Temporal Built-Up Grids of Brazilian Cities: How Trends and Dynamic Modelling Could Help on Resilience Challenges?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear All

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

In this article, the authors described a very interesting and important issue concerning the problems of urbanization on the one hand, and on the other hand, the problems of climate change and water scarcity in expanding cities.

The structure of the article is correct. The methods are clearly described and the obtained results are the answer to the undertaken problem. The authors cited 44 items of literature, most of which are new studies referring to the topic of the article. This proves that the authors know the subject very well.

The original figures presented in the work are prepared with great care and clearly illustrate the obtained results. It's good that the authors also presented the problem in the photographs. For people from other parts of the world, this allows for better visualization

I have doubts about placing non-author's engravings in the paper. It seems to me that it would be enough to quote the publication in which they were contained.

As for the content, I have no major comments

Only in the abstract in line 21 the abbreviation GIS was used (most of us know what it is about, but not everyone), I think that it should be expanded

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Generally, I found the article entitled ‘Multi-temporal built-up grids of Brazilian cities: how  trends and dynamic modelling could help on  resilience challenges? interesting to read and worthy of being published in the Sustainability journal. However, I have one main comment and some minors comments  which have to be included before the paper can be published. I strongly advise major revision.

 

Main comment

My major comment deals with the selection of test areas and the way the results are presented.

All six cities are located on the east part of the region. Do they present a spectrum of NEB cities? Why do you decide to select cities located close to each other? Provide criteria of cities selection.

The characteristic of selected six cities in terms of analysed factors and the criteria of their selection should be provided.  Explain similarities/dissimilarities between cities in  Table 1. Provide data on: area of cities, key features of each city (time of creation, history of development, functions etc.), current development trends, water problems, water consumption, flood risks, data on historical trends in LU development etc.

Result are described to generally. Provide results – tables, figures (for example Figure 13, 12)– for six analysed cities. Current  presentation of results does not provide the whole picture of an analysed issue. Indicate and analyse differences among results in reference to six cities in terms of each factor. Provide data on development trends by indicating cities of the similar character in terms of urban sprawl.  

 

Abstract

Add goal of the study

 

Introduction

Goal of the study should be formulated at the end of the Introduction section.

Explain in details the notion of ‘ natural resilient’

Figure 2: Add location of main cities

Figure 3. Provide the source of the data presented on figure 3

Lines: 109- 115 and check in all the text: the correct citation should be as follow: “ introduced by Von Neumann and Burks [27] ….  Conway [28] presented…”

 

Materials and methods

Provide source of SIMLANDER

Provide assumption of the simulation model: stable growth, accelerating growth, …

Figure 4: Provide scale bar

Table 2: Change ‘epochs’ to ‘ periods’

It is not clear how water consumption was estimated. Provide source of data and each stage of the method.   

Explain source of values and reference to method for calculation of infiltration and roughness. 

Line 227: Explain why data from Campina Grande was selected to simulate flooding events

 

Results

Lines 237-243 are not clear. Please explain this stage of the research

Figure 11: Provide name of the city

Line 265: Explain the source of historical data

Move lines 290-301 to the discussions section

 

Discussion

Add discussion with papers on NEB cities, similar method, dynamic modelling etc.

Formulate advantages and limitations of the adopted approach

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript highlighted some multi-temporal built-up grids of Brazilian cities to explore the trends and dynamic modelling that could help on resilience challenges. The approach is well founded, but the present form of this manuscript is not suitable for publication in Sustainability. It needs following major revisions: 

1. Abstract is very poorly written. The present form of abstract shows the background information mostly. It lacks objectives, findings and implications.
2. L19: The webpage should be removed and highlighted in the data section or acknowledgment.
3. L30: “0%”. It looks awkward. positive itself says >0.
4. Introduction does not highlight the objectives and lacks proper background information. It can be merged with section 2.
5. Background structure shows the manuscript is written as a book chapter. I suggest to reorganize the manuscript as a journal format with clear objectives and background information.
6. Overall, the manuscript mostly highlights the methods and background information. Results are not sufficiently discussed as per methods highlighted. Authors should focus more on the results with suitable hypotheses and discuss the variants scientifically with own or published research work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I am happy to read this interesting contribution for integrated urban development including water issue. I think this can be a significant contribution for the application of open data for data-poor region. However, there are some points that need to be improved further:  

• The current title seems a bit unclear. It is not clear whether the author is focusing on methodology or adoption of open data or policymaking.
• The abstract need to be revised further by highlighting their own study results, current results described too general and nothing new…..
• Choosing CA as a dynamic simulation approach is fine, but the discussion on other candidate approaches are missing and the reader may also be happy to know what are the rationals for CA for this case; given that CA is sensitive to MAUP. Actually, the uncertainty issue needs to be a dedicated section for this article. You may find an example: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41651-019-0029-y
• The author has used mostly open data and tools; then why to use ArcGIS pro……being consistency to open source may help to reproduce and replicate better
• Table 3 listed some influence variable; but the missing source or referee to scientific evidence or justification to select them
• The description on GHSL dataset has been described which is nice to have but can be short by refereeing to related literature.
• The analytical part still can be improved further including some spatial index like: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212095518301676?via%3Dihub

In general, just an option…..concentrating on a single city to show the application of the methodology and comprehensive analysis can be a good choice.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The review addressed most of my previous comments, especially in the term of providing criteria of cities selection (Table 1), cities’ characteristic (Table 2) and results for all six cities. Besides, the explanation of ‘ natural resilient’  and provision of all the data  sources improved the paper significantly. It can be seen that authors put a lot of effort into the revision.  

As a result, however, some new data and information is located in wrong sections, for example: 294-302 and 327-330 should be  moved to the method section; 343- 348: should be a part of discussion section presenting advantages and limitations of the adopted approach. Please, read all the text carefully ones again and check if all the new paragraphs fit to their sections.

Besides, the result section lacks the deep explanation on differences and similarities  between the six cities in terms of data presented in figures 10-12. You use expression such as ’Some of the cities’ and ‘ in other cities’ instead of providing the cities’ names. Explain in details the result, which city features the highest / the lowest water consumption, level of urban sprawl, flood risk etc. Figures are informative but their also need explanation in the text.

Finally, describe more in details how urban dynamicity is observed spatially (based on the results presented in figure 9) and explain the impact of limitations on the study results (lines 406-410).

Author Response

Reviewer 2: The review addressed most of my previous comments, especially in the term of providing criteria of cities selection (Table 1), cities’ characteristic (Table 2) and results for all six cities. Besides, the explanation of ‘ natural resilient’  and provision of all the data  sources improved the paper significantly. It can be seen that authors put a lot of effort into the revision. 

Authors: We appreciate your comments. We truly believe that your comments and suggestions improved our manuscript considerably. Thank you very much.

Reviewer 2: As a result, however, some new data and information is located in wrong sections, for example: 294-302 and 327-330 should be  moved to the method section; 343- 348: should be a part of discussion section presenting advantages and limitations of the adopted approach. Please, read all the text carefully ones again and check if all the new paragraphs fit to their sections.

Authors: Thank you for the comments. You are completely right. The suggested changes are now all accepted. Lines 294-302 are now in the method section (lines 241 to 250)  As well as the lines 343-348 were moved to the discussion session (lines 448 to 453). After these last changes, a final and careful reading was done and we hope there is no more misplaced text along with the manuscript.

Reviewer 2: Besides, the result section lacks the deep explanation on differences and similarities between the six cities in terms of data presented in figures 10-12. You use expression such as ’Some of the cities’ and ‘ in other cities’ instead of providing the cities’ names. Explain in details the result, which city features the highest / the lowest water consumption, level of urban sprawl, flood risk etc. Figures are informative but their also need explanation in the text.

Authors: Thanks for the suggestion. Most of the authors have been living in the NEB (in different cities along with time) and because we know so much our own reality our manuscript is assuming it is something well known by others. You are completely sure. We have now, named each city and discuss the results in a more specific and detailed way. Section 4 (Results) and section 5 (Discussion) were hardly reviewed and we hope now the figures are well explained and discussed. Thanks. 

Reviewer 2: Finally, describe more in details how urban dynamicity is observed spatially (based on the results presented in figure 9) and explain the impact of limitations on the study results (lines 406-410).

Authors: We appreciate your suggestions and lines 338 to 347; 484 to 486 are now emphasizing the urban dynamicity observed in each city.

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the authors’ effort. The manuscript is substantially revised and most of my comments are considered. However, results section is still not convincing. The present form of the manuscript highlights the materials and methods mostly as such authors have not analyzed their results except showing 5 figures. It is very surprising that how a manuscript comprising of 21 pages has only 1 page of text in results section. So I strongly suggest the authors to analysis the figures in MUCH more details so that readers can understand the what authors have analyzed to address their objectives.

Author Response

Reviewer 3: I appreciate the authors’ effort. The manuscript is substantially revised and most of my comments are considered.

Authors: We appreciate your comments. We truly believe that your comments and suggestions improved our manuscript considerably. Thank you very much

Reviewer 3: However, results section is still not convincing. The present form of the manuscript highlights the materials and methods mostly as such authors have not analyzed their results except showing 5 figures. It is very surprising that how a manuscript comprising of 21 pages has only 1 page of text in results section. So I strongly suggest the authors to analysis the figures in MUCH more details so that readers can understand the what authors have analyzed to address their objectives.

Authors: You are completely sure. We have now, named each city and discuss the results in a more specific and detailed way. Section 4 (Results) and section 5 (Discussion) were hardly reviewed and we hope now the figures are well explained and discussed. Thanks. 

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have considered my suggestions and explained the figures more elaborately in the results section. The revised manuscript may be possible to accept the article with the following minor re-organization.

Looking into the clarity of the manuscript, I suggest the authors to merge the discussion section with result section as “Results and discussion” and provide a short “conclusion” section separately.

Author Response

Reviewer3: Authors have considered my suggestions and explained the figures more elaborately in the results section. The revised manuscript may be possible to accept the article with the following minor re-organization.

Authors: We agree that your suggestions improved a lot our manuscript and we appreciate your effort in making it a better quality manuscript. Thank you very much.

Reviewer3:Looking into the clarity of the manuscript, I suggest the authors to merge the discussion section with result section as “Results and discussion” and provide a short “conclusion” section separately.

Authors: Thanks for your suggestion and now we shortened the conclusions section. We also merged and renamed the previous section to "Results and discussion" and moved some discussion to this section (which is highlighted in the manuscript). We think this final changes sharpened, even more, our manuscript. Thanks.