Urban Growth Management in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: An Assessment of Technical Policy Instruments and Institutional Practices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well-written paper on a very important topic. I think it suffers however from a lack of a clear research question and clear conclusions, and instead, it reads more like a neutral project report or case study. I suggest that the research question might be framed around whether the methodology of growth management used in Riyadh has proven effective, e.g. in concert with public involvement. It might also frame the discussion around the current context of rapid automobile-dependent growth (sprawl) in the city, and the measures to mitigate and/or insert new models and new planning strategies, e.g. infill, zoning, transport, etc. The conclusions might then assess the results, and next steps to improve the outcome(s) and/or follow up on further research. 

The other area that could be improved is the citation of existing work in this area, e.g. in growth management theory and practice in other cities, and specific mitigation measures (changes to zoning, street planning, etc).  With these areas of the paper strengthened, I believe this will be a valuable contribution to the literature.

Author Response

 

Response to Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer

I would like to thank you, for your useful comments that enriched and enhanced the quality of paper. We have met these useful comments. Importantly, we have used Red Color with Under Line of each modification to emphasize these comments in the paper.   

Comments

• Comment 1: We have modified the study questions into causal hypotheses. Please see section 3
• Comment 2: We have presented practice of urban growth management in other cities. Please see section 3, (second paragraph).
• Comment 3: it is related to link some findings to the literature. Please see sub-section 2 (The effectiveness of technical policy instruments), the second paragraph.

 

Please if you have any other comments, inform me and I will do my best.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is concerned with Urban Growth Management in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: An Assessment of Technical Policy Instruments and Institutional Practices.  The topic is an important for decision makers and academics. In addition, research on urban management issues is generally limited in developing countries.

 

The paper is good, particularly the methodology used to meet the study questions. However, there is a number of comments that may contribute to improving quality of paper as follows:

 

 

(1) In the second section (Urban growth and technical policy instruments in Riyadh), the author(s) has described progress of technical instruments in response to evolution of urban growth in Riyadh. The last part in this section is discussed the Saudi Vision 2030. After approving the Saudi Vision 2030 several initiatives were appeared in Riyadh such as megaprojects and the transformation of city itself towards urban smartness. Author(s) should present this issue with one paragraph at least.  

 

(2) The author(s) has used mixed method approach which is fit to achieve the study objectives. The author(s) should justify why they started in quantitative analysis before qualitative analysis.

 

(3) The author(s) should explain the fieldwork phase in terms of time, and any difficulties appeared during the fieldwork.

 

(4) In regression analysis, findings revealed that there are three factors affecting performance of technical policy instruments. The author(s) should indicate to the relative importance of these factors (I mean the most important variable affects technical instruments)

 

 

I think that the above comments may enhance the quality of paper.

 

 

Sincerely,

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

 

Dear Reviewer

I would like to thank you, for your useful comments that enriched and enhanced the quality of paper. We have met these useful comments. Importantly, we have used Red Color with Under Line of each modification to emphasize these comments in the paper.   

 

Comments

• Comment 1: the comment is about the importance of transformation of Riyadh into a smart city. We have dealt with this comment by adding the last paragraph in section 2.
• Comment 2: the justification of the use of quantitative method before qualitative method. We have provided clarifications concerning this issue. Please see the first paragraph section 4, sub-section 4.3. It is worth mentioning that this study is primarily quantitative.
• Comment 3: it is about the time of questionnaire distribution. We met this comment. Please see the lase line in the first paragraph section 4.3.
• Comment 4: the comment is concerned with the most important factor affects the effectiveness of policy instruments. We determined this by mentioning the most important factor which is community participation, please see sub-section 5.3 (part community participation, first line).

 

Please if you have any other comments, inform me and I will do my best.

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Advantages of the article.

An interesting topic was chosen, a well-argued problem.

Minor shortcomings. The bibliography could have been longer. The analysis of theoretical approaches could have been more detailed.

Areas that should be improved.

- 6 essential questions were formulated and presented in the text. When using quantitative research methodology, it is common to formulate hypotheses. And when using qualitative research methodology - defensible statements. The question arises how to treat the questions formulated and presented in the article. Or as research tasks? Then they should be presented as tasks arising from the objective. If as hypotheses or defensible statements - then both hypotheses and defensible statements should be confirmed or rejected in the data analysis. A logical explanation would be It is useful to provide information on how the quantitative study sample was calculated. - The title of chapter 4 needs to be corrected. It is recommended that this section be titled "Methodology and Methods." This chapter focuses on the presentation of the scales of the questionnaire. It would be possible to present the entire questionnaire in the appendix, and here the methodology of quantitative and qualitative research can be justified more clearly.

- The article states that for the presentation of these questions in the article are needed. "818 questionnaires were mailed to selected respondents, and 337 questionnaires were returned completed, for a response rate of 41%. (lines 416-418). It is mentioned that the questionnaires were sent to selected respondents. What selection method was used? The percentage of reversibility of the questionnaire is 41. The reliability of the data obtained should be explained. Whether the data obtained can be analyzed as data of an exploratory study or still as data of a representative study.

- It is incorrect to calculate the percentage of interviews, since only 15 persons were interviewed. It is better to indicate the specific number of respondents in the text. (When it is indicated that 70 % answered yes, turning the percentages into whole numbers, we get that 10.5 people answered. The same goes for mentioning 85 percent. - we get 12.75 people)

- When analyzing qualitative research data, categories are usually distinguished before the research, and subcategories are distinguished during the analysis. It would be good to indicate the selected categories and the subcategories that emerged during the analysis.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

 

Dear Reviewer

I would like to thank you, for your useful comments that enriched and enhanced the quality of paper. We have met these useful comments. Importantly, we have used Red Color with Under Line of each modification to emphasize these comments in the paper.   

 

Comments

• Comment 1: change questions to hypotheses. We met this comment. Please see section 3 and sub-section 5.3.
• Comment 2: The title of chapter 4 needs to be corrected. You recommended that this section be titled "Methodology and Methods." We done this.
• Comment 3: The comment is “This chapter focuses on the presentation of the scales of the questionnaire. It would be possible to present the entire questionnaire in the appendix.” In my opinion, it is import for readers, particularly Middle East readers, to recognize the sources of scales and the measurement ways, rather than the presentation of the questionnaire itself as an appendix. However, we merged this section to be sub-section into "Methodology and Methods". Hence, I will leave the decision for you in this issue. If you see that the best is the removal of measurement, I will do.
• Comment 4: The comment is concerned with study method. This study is mainly quantitative but we have used qualitative method in a limited context (15 interviews) to obtain more explanations regarding quantitative results. We have justified this comment in sub-section 4.3, the first paragraph.
• Comment 5: The comment is “It is mentioned that the questionnaires were sent to selected respondents. What selection method was used?” we have clarified this comment, please see table 3 “sample profile”.
• Comment 6: The comment is concerned with reliability. We have provided more clarifications about this comment. We have used alpha to determine the level of consistency for scales. Please see the last paragraph, sub-section 4.3, which is before table 4.
• Comment 7: This comment is related to percentages of interviewees’ responses. We removed all percentages as you suggested. Please see sub-sections 5.2 and 5.3.
• Comment 8: The comment suggests establishing categories before the research, and subcategories during the analysis. We have confirmed in the revisions that this study is not qualitative and interviews were conducted to help us in understanding of quantitative results deeply.

 

Please if you have any other comments, inform me and I will do my best.

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is significantly improved. I am still surprised that the author(s) make no mention of the New Urban Agenda or Sustainable Development Goals, given that they are international urbanization frameworks adopted by acclamation by ll 193 countries of the United Nations, including Saudi Arabia.  

In addition, there are minor issues with language, e.g. "Centralization has a significant impact on the...?"  If a question mark is used, these sentences should be restructured to "Does centralization have a significant impact...?"

 

Good. Only minor editing (copyediting) required. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

I would like to inform you that we have attached the modified version.

We have considered the last two comments. We have shaded the new modification using Yellow Color to show this modification. Please see section 2: Urban growth and technical policy instruments in Riyadh.

 

The second comment is about minor issues with language in terms of (question mark?) after each hypothesis. I am sorry about this mistake; we have modified this comment. It is hypotheses, not questions, as proposed by reviewers. 

 

We have checked all references in the content and the list of references.

 

Please if you have any other comments, inform me and I will do my best.

 

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf