Achieving Sustainable Smart Cities through Geospatial Data-Driven Approaches

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First, the title of the article is appropriate, as is the content of the abstract.

 

The scenario in which this research is set is highly relevant and topical and concerns the potential of using geospatial data for applications and approaches to improve the quality of life of citizens in smart cities. This work aims to review the state-of-the-art in the field.

 

Overall, the document has a clear and organized structure and is well written. 

The structure of the paper is clear: after the introduction, section 2 describes the fundamental concepts of smart cities associated with sustainable development goals; section 3 discusses technological details about the acquisition and storage of geospatial data; section 4 presents the main issues related to data processing and management; section 5 reviews the state of the art of smart city applications that leverage geospatial data as a key element; section 6 delves into research trends and anticipated challenges; finally, conclusions and references are presented.

The tables and figures are clear and explanatory of the work. 

very thorough literature review and references is included.

 

The article focuses on how geospatial data-driven approaches can help overcome some of the most important and current challenges facing cities, such as adopting alternative energy to decrease dependence on fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing the use of private vehicles to reduce the environmental and social impacts of urban mobility.

 

Integration of different data sources is one of the aspects covered in the article. In terms of how data is produced and processed, three approaches are distinguished: Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Remote Sensing and Internet of Things (IoT)-based sensing. All of these are used for the production and management of geospatial data, which can support the operation of smart city applications or be stored as georeferenced datasets.

 

Interesting is the analysis of applications in smart cities in section 5, which identifies the main application themes, including Pollution monitoring, Smart urban mobility, Efficient water management, Sustainable waste management, Smart urban farming, Smart health, Emergency management, Smart grids.

It might be interesting to complete the discussion by pointing out and elaborating on some particularly effective experiences conducted by cities in these areas, also to support the enunciated potentials with examples.

 

In the face of an overall well-articulated and argued article, in my opinion Section 6, "Research Challenges and Prospects", and in particular the conclusions, are dealt with succinctly and could be expanded.

In agreement with the authors' hope that "With sustainability as a key objective, it is our belief that 

this article can significantly support new research efforts in this area."

 

I propose the following minor revisions/additions.

 

To make the exposition more effective, it might be interesting to supplement the discussion by pointing out some particularly effective experiences conducted by cities through geospatial data-driven approaches, also to support the enunciated potentials with concrete examples.

 

To make the exposition more understandable, the relationships between the use of different data sources, particularly geographic information systems (GIS), remote sensing and Internet of Things (IoT)-based sensing, could be more clearly illustrated, including by providing examples of applications. To further explain the authors' statement “the expected scenario is a rich combination of GIS, remote sensing and IoT sensor employed to provide data end support its proper processing” “

 

The conclusions are clear enough and in accordance with the contents of the article, but they could be more effective and provide a more incisive interpretation of the results of the research conducted.

Author Response

First and foremost, we express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for dedicating their time and effort to thoroughly review our article. 

The suggestions were addressed as follows:

Comment 1: To make the exposition more effective, it might be interesting to supplement the discussion by pointing out some particularly effective experiences conducted by cities through geospatial data-driven approaches, also to support the enunciated potentials with concrete examples.

Response 1: This is a very interesting suggestion that we fully addressed in the revised manuscript. The new subsection 5.2. “Urban Cases and Experiences” addresses the reviewer’ concerns, presenting concrete examples.

Comment 2: To make the exposition more understandable, the relationships between the use of different data sources, particularly geographic information systems (GIS), remote sensing and Internet of Things (IoT)-based sensing, could be more clearly illustrated, including by providing examples of applications. To further explain the authors' statement “the expected scenario is a rich combination of GIS, remote sensing and IoT sensor employed to provide data end support its proper processing”.

Response 2: We would like to thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Based on it, we have performed more compressive discussions about these elements in Introduction and Section 3, also addressing comments from other reviewers at this aspect. Moveover, section 5 was extended to include new discussions in the new subsection 5.2. We believe the manuscript was improved after such corrections.

Comment 3: The conclusions are clear enough and in accordance with the contents of the article, but they could be more effective and provide a more incisive interpretation of the results of the research conducted.

Response 3: We agree with the reviewer about this issue. We added two new paragraphs into that section, improving our achieved conclusions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on the implementation of sustainable smart cities through geospatial approaches, discusses their contributions to the development of smart cities, provides a review of the latest developments in this field, and highlights successes and retaining challenges in exploring geospatial data driven strategies to empower smart cities for a more sustainable future. However, some minor changes in the manuscript should be modified. Therefore, I recommend reconsideration of the manuscript following minor revision.

 1.     In the section 3, in addition to explaining the purposes of GIS, Remote Sensing and Internet of Things (IoT)-based sensing, it is also possible to consider listing and explaining the data types and characteristics of the data.

 2.     In the section 4, it is recommended that the author explain the limitations of the data, as well as the issues that need to be noted during the data processing.

 3.     In the section 6, it is suggested to clarification on the challenges in data-driven technology.

 4.     In the conclusion, it is recommended to further emphasize the role, significance, and existing problems of data-driven methods, and further enrich the relevant content of research prospects.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None more comments on English language.

Author Response

First and foremost, we express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for dedicating their time and effort to thoroughly review our article.

The suggestions were addressed as follows:

Comment 1: In the section 3, in addition to explaining the purposes of GIS, Remote Sensing and Internet of Things (IoT)-based sensing, it is also possible to consider listing and explaining the data types and characteristics of the data.

Response 1: This is an interesting comment, that we carefully considered and discussed among us. About the data types and characteristics, these valuable discussions are comprehensively performed in Section 4. We decided to do like this (separating them in two different sections) to facilitate our narrative and improve the readability of the article. Doing so, discussions in Section 4 also mention the relation of the data with GIS, remote sensing and IoT, “closing” the circle and supporting a more comprehensive analysis of this area. We reviewed the manuscript to make sure that this overall idea is clear to the readers. 

Comment 2: In the section 4, it is recommended that the author explain the limitations of the data, as well as the issues that need to be noted during the data processing.

Response 2: We agree that such discussions are fundamental in the performed survey. However, while we started to add pertinent discussions in Section 4, we noticed that some of these concerns (limitations and data validity) were already scattered over that section. So, we decided to add such discussion in the Conclusions, improving the overall quality of the manuscript. Moreover, we added a new discussion about it in section 6 to make it clearer.

Comment 3:  In the section 6, it is suggested to clarification on the challenges in data-driven technology.

Response 3: This is indeed a very relevant suggestion. We have extended section 5 including a new subsection and making additional challenges-centric discussions in subsection 5.2. We also extended Section 6 to address this concern.

Comment 4: In the conclusion, it is recommended to further emphasize the role, significance, and existing problems of data-driven methods, and further enrich the relevant content of research prospects.

Response 4: We have extended the Conclusions of the paper with two new paragraphs, specifically focused on the achieved results. A similar discussion is also presented in the improved Section 6. Due to the complexity and “density” of the article, we believe that the performed corrections are sufficient to address this concern of the reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors review the state-of-the-art in sustainable smart cities using geospatial data-driven approaches. Generally speaking, this manuscript is well-organized. However, there exist some room to be improved furthermore.

 

Would you please list the major points, in the abstract, about the successes and remaining challenges in exploiting geospatial data-driven strategies?

 

Is there any existing reviews related to smart city or sustainable city? Please specify what is the relationship between this reviews with them?

 

There is not any explanation about Figure 1. My suggestion is move it into section 2, and relate some elements in Figure 1 with the three pillars or challenges mentioned in this section.

 

The term Internet of Things should be paced where the IoT occurs at the first time, e.g., line 135.

 

In subsection 3.1, the authors talk about what is GIS and what it can do. However, it is still unclear what the current GIS has contribute to smart cities, e.g. some specific examples under the three pillars, and what is the expectation of GIS for sustainable smart cities. There exist the same flaws in subsection 3.2 -3.3.

 

How do the data shown in Figures related to sustainable smart city?

 

Would you please provide the information about spatial coverage and/or time span of these urban datasets listed in table 2.

Author Response

First and foremost, we express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for dedicating their time and effort to thoroughly review our article.

The suggestions were addressed as follows:

Comment 1: Would you please list the major points, in the abstract, about the successes and remaining challenges in exploiting geospatial data-driven strategies?

Response 1: This is a very relevant suggestion that we totally agree with. We have rewritten the Abstract, which now makes it clearer the major challenges that our article seeks to solve. The idea of highlighting cases of successes are also present.

Comment 2: Is there any existing reviews related to smart city or sustainable city? Please specify what is the relationship between this reviews with them?

Response 2: We agree with the reviewer that this was a missing aspect in our original submission. This way, we introduced a proper discussion about other review articles, and how they relate with our work. This discussion was inserted into the Introduction section.

Comment 3: There is not any explanation about Figure 1. My suggestion is move it into section 2, and relate some elements in Figure 1 with the three pillars or challenges mentioned in this section.

Response 3: We agree. Figure 1 was moved to Section 2 and a better explanation was done. 

Comment 4: The term Internet of Things should be paced where the IoT occurs at the first time, e.g., line 135.

Response 4: We corrected this issue in the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment 5: In subsection 3.1, the authors talk about what is GIS and what it can do. However, it is still unclear what the current GIS has contribute to smart cities, e.g. some specific examples under the three pillars, and what is the expectation of GIS for sustainable smart cities. There exist the same flaws in subsection 3.2 -3.3

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this relevant suggestion. About it, some of the concerns of the reviewer are already addressed in section 5, which further discuss practical issues and recent contributions toward sustainability by all mentioned resources/tools. However, in order to make it clearer, we added new discussions in Section 3 on these issues, for each subsection.

Comment 6: How do the data shown in Figures related to sustainable smart city?

Response 6: Thank you for this comment. We discussed the meaning of “Figures” in order to realize which one you were talking about. Well, we considered every Figure in our article, trying to figure out the possible improvements suggested by the reviewer.

Concerning Figure 1,it was moved into Section 2, comprising now a previous concern of the reviewer.

About Figure 2, well it is the practical exemplification of the three resources/tools discussed in the section, and we believe it is significant for their purposes.

The last is Figure 3, which comprehensively positions all elements within the general concept of promoting sustainable urban development. We believe it is fine (we wanted to avoid confusions by further changing it, since it is a key element in our work).

Comment 7: Would you please provide the information about spatial coverage and/or time span of these urban datasets listed in table 2

Response 7: We rewrote Table 2 in order to include the suggested information, particularly with two new columns (Location and Time span)

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a review of geospatial data-driven approaches for sustainable smart cities. The idea of the study is significant and the content is written well. However, several aspects of the manuscript required to be modified. Therefore, I suggest revising the manuscript by considering the following comments.

1.     Most content of the abstract explains the significance and the problem gap of the study and a little content is allocated for the main content of the study. There is a need to mention what is the study about, what are the main features of the study and the value that is obtained by this study. Therefore, I suggest the authors to modify the abstract.

2.     In the introduction part, the problem gap is not clear. I suggest the authors elaborate on this issue.

3.     It is better to have a list of the main contributions of the manuscript (2-3 points).  

4.     Independent of the review type, the review article must have a predefined methodology and the methods utilized for the review should be explained clearly in the review paper. This is not found clearly in the manuscript.

5.     Review articles should be written in a structured format according to time period, subtopics, etc.

6.     The review article should provide expert opinions on evidences found and analyzed through the cited references in a structured format.

7.     Limitations, biases, and gaps in the included literature should be discussed along with the limitations of the review process itself. It is critical to discuss the potential impacts of the results for future research.

8.     There is a need to add a discussion section to provide a general interpretation of the results and present expert opinion. A review article not only concerns extracting relevant previous works and analyzing them but also makes synthesis and drawing conclusions.

9.     There is a need to check the manuscript for English typos and grammar mistakes specically the abstract section.

10.  Small issues:

(1)   Figure 1 is not drawn by the authors and should be obtained from a reference, please add a citation.

(2)   Categorization in the Table should add the name of each category and mention their features.

(3)   The authors can not only use tables to show the differences in geospatial data-driven methods, but also can use bar other tools such as tables or specific figures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is a need to check the manuscript for English typos and grammar mistakes, specically the abstract section.

Author Response

First and foremost, we express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for dedicating their time and effort to thoroughly review our article.

The suggestions were addressed as follows:

Comment 1:  Most content of the abstract explains the significance and the problem gap of the study and a little content is allocated for the main content of the study. There is a need to mention what is the study about, what are the main features of the study and the value that is obtained by this study. Therefore, I suggest the authors to modify the abstract.

Response 1: This is a very relevant suggestion that we totally agree with. We have rewritten the Abstract, highlighting the suggested corrections. The main contents of our study are now better presented. 

Comment 2:  In the introduction part, the problem gap is not clear. I suggest the authors elaborate on this issue.

Response 2: We have written the Introduction section, making it clearer the problem gap and how our work relates to the existing literature. 

Comment 3: It is better to have a list of the main contributions of the manuscript (2-3 points).  

Response 3: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have added a bullet description of the contributions of our work in the last part of the Introduction section.

Comment 4:  Independent of the review type, the review article must have a predefined methodology and the methods utilized for the review should be explained clearly in the review paper. This is not found clearly in the manuscript.

Response 4: Although we agree with the reviewer that a more structured reviewing methodology could be adopted, we believe that this is more common in systematic literature reviews. Actually our work intended to perform a survey of the area, which follows a less formal methodological approach.

Nevertheless, we also conducted a more formal review at some point, particularly in Section 5.1. In that section, we have the text: “A surveying of the literature was conducted for the period between 2019 and 2023 in the following databases: IEEE Xplore, Springer Link, ScienceDirect, ACM Digital Library and MDPI. The search was based on the following keywords: ``sustainable smart cities'', ``geospatial data'', ``data-driven approaches'', ``internet of things'', ``remote sensing'', and ``geographic information systems''. From this initial search, 152 articles were identified and selected. After a final review based on content and practical results, a total of 15 articles were selected and summarised in Table 3.”

Therefore, we believe that we followed a hybrid methodological approach, which is very reasonable when considering other survey works in smart cities.

Comment 5: Review articles should be written in a structured format according to time period, subtopics, etc.

Response 5: We are not sure about how to address this comment. The sections in our article were written in a way that a reasonable flow of ideas could be achieved, guiding the readers from a broader perspective about sustainable smart cities to a more in-depth perception of the challenges and opportunities in data-driven approaches. In this sense, the construction of time periods and subtopics were confined within the performed discussions, section by section, which is in fact a common approach in survey works. We believe that the adopted methodology is consistent with the state of the art in this field.

Comment 6:  The review article should provide expert opinions on evidences found and analyzed through the cited references in a structured format.

Response 6: The answer to this comment is similar to the previous one. The nature of our article is a survey paper, which positions the readers within the reviewed areas and discusses existing literature and challenges. This way, expert opinions are only considered through the papers presented in the literature. Nevertheless, we believe that the presented discussions and results are relevant to the area, as they follow a similar methodology and structure of other survey papers in this area. 

Comment 7: Limitations, biases, and gaps in the included literature should be discussed along with the limitations of the review process itself. It is critical to discuss the potential impacts of the results for future research.

Response 7: We have inserted comprehensive discussions about limitations of smart city approaches and geospatial datasets. Moreover, the limitations of the performed reviews were also discussed in section 6. The potential impacts for future works are discussed in sections 6.1 and 6.2. Finally, the Conclusions section was improved to better address the mentioned issues. 

Comment 8: There is a need to add a discussion section to provide a general interpretation of the results and present expert opinion. A review article not only concerns extracting relevant previous works and analyzing them but also makes synthesis and drawing conclusions.

Response 8: This is a very relevant comment, which we totally agree with. First, we added new discussions in Section 5, improving the performed discussions as a whole. Second and more important, we considerably extended the Conclusions section, drawing conclusions and discussing the overall results of the article. We believe that by doing so we could significantly improve the quality of our work.

Comment 9: There is a need to check the manuscript for English typos and grammar mistakes specifically the abstract section.

Response 9: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript for English typos and grammar mistakes. The abstract was rewritten and improved.

Comment 10: Figure 1 is not drawn by the authors and should be obtained from a reference, please add a citation.

Response 10: The original Figure was created partially with the support of an AI-powered tool, following our instructions about a visual representation of sustainability goals and data-driven smart cities. Since this is a usual approach, we decided to keep it. Actually, this figure is unique as it is, not being retrieved from another document.

Comment 11: Categorization in the Table should add the name of each category and mention their features.

Response 11: We tried to figure out which Table is being mentioned by the reviewer. Concerning Tables 2 and 3, they already have categories and the features of the surveyed works are displayed. We paid extra attention to this issue, carefully reviewing the tables.

Comment 12: The authors can not only use tables to show the differences in geospatial data-driven methods, but also can use bar other tools such as tables or specific figures.

Response 12: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. Actually, we totally agree with the reviewer’s point, but this is hard to accomplish since we are comparing data-driven approaches that are usually addressing different problems in smart cities. This way, using bars or similar tools for comparisons could become pointless since one the objectives of a survey work is to present the state of the art and organize the ideas, and not necessarily indicate which approach is best. With all that said, and considering the relevance of the performed analyses and discussions, we respectfully decided to not change the way the surveyed works are being compared.

We thank the reviewer for their valuable comments, which considerably contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no comment futhermore. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for your remarkable efforts in modifying the manuscript. The manuscript becomes better and sounds more scientific after the last modification. The authors answered almost all concerns in the previous review. 

I think the article is ready for publication in its current form.