Developing an Integrated Analytical Framework for Sustainability Assessment: Focusing on Selected Projects in Riyadh

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review of the paper adequately addressed most of the comments about Clarification of Methodology Status, Scoring Criteria Justification, Relation of Chapters 4, 5, 6 to Methodology and Evaluation Criteria for Scoring. Replicability and Applicability of the Method are more clearly articulated  with the inclusion of a flowchart illustrating the methodological scheme.

Finally, only the scoring methodology employed to assess cultural integration raises some concerns. First, as also highlighted in the references listed, cultural identity is inherently subjective and complex, making it challenging to quantify through rigid metrics. It’s not objective how the criteria outlined may capture the interpretations of cultural sensitivity and authenticity, which can vary greatly depending on individual perspectives and regional contexts. In the responses, authors say that the scoring methodology employed to assess cultural integration include the preservation of cultural identity and validity is ensured through a structured approach that examines tangible manifestations of cultural elements within the built environment, supported by documented references and expert consensus on cultural preservation practices.  The proposed metrics may not be consistently applicable across different architectural settings. For instance, in contemporary urban areas reflecting a shift toward innovative urbanism, the same criteria could yield irrelevant or misleading results, while in historic heritage sites, the limited scope for transformation should lead to high scores. This variability underscores the impracticality of applying a uniform scoring system across diverse contexts in the perspective of this reviewer. On the other hand, it could be argued that new architectural paradigm that addresses contemporary challenges while embracing sustainability and social needs can set a new standard for architecture.

 

However, recognizing the relevance that authors highlighted of aligning design with both local heritage and forward-thinking aspirations, considering that the paper is ready for publication, in relation to this aspect it is recommended to explicitly acknowledge the limitations of the scoring method, particularly in terms of metrics quantification and replicability in various contexts, for the criteria of cultural integration and the fact that the criteria considered in the paper are related to the specific architectural setting and to authors interpretations of cultural sensitivity and authenticity, which can vary depending on individual perspectives and regional contexts.

Author Response

There are almost no comments, but a discussion about how to measure cultural factors in research was answered in the attached file. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has changed substantially. The reviewer's recommendations regarding the previous version have been taken into account in this new version, and the article has been substantially improved.

Author Response

There are no comments,  Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Developing an Integrated Analytical Framework for Sustainability Assessment: Focusing on Selected Projects in Riyadh” presented many modifications to the first version, including the title.

The article is within the scope of the Journal.

Some aspects must be improved to present a document suitable for publication:

-        Abstract: The phrase "What’s the meaning of ETE methodology?" in line 20 needs to be revised to sound more formal and clear. I suggest: "What is the significance of the ETE methodology?" or "What does the ETE methodology entail?"

-        In general, the abstract is well-structured, clearly presenting the study’s contributions and main results.

-        References numbering: The numbering of references should start at 1, not 0.

-        Figures: I recommend removing the grid background from Figures 1 and 2 to improve visual clarity.

-        Line 135: The phrase "Several studies have shown that..." needs to be supplemented with specific references. I suggest citing a few relevant studies.

-        Organization of the work: The methodology contains too much literature review, making it important to clearly differentiate these chapters. It is not necessary to delve deeply into theoretical aspects within the methodology section; focusing on the practical aspects would be more appropriate.

-        Figure 2: I suggest removing the phrase "by authors."

-        Figures and tables: There are deficiencies in citing figures and tables in the text before presenting them. Additionally, table titles should not be part of the table structure.

-        Chapter 2 (Methods): There is the presentation of results in this chapter, which is not appropriate. I recommend reorganizing the content. Furthermore, tables and charts are presented without adequate discussion. It is essential to deepen the analysis and include relevant discussions.

-        Figure numbering: The order of figure numbering is incorrect and needs to be adjusted.

 

-        Overall reorganization: The work, in general, needs to be reorganized, particularly in terms of providing a more in-depth discussion of the presented results.

Author Response

All comments have been addressed in the revised version and comments on the reviewer's recommendations have been clarified in the attached file...Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article underwent significant changes in both structure and content.

The authors demonstrated commitment and interest in improving the document according to the reviewers' suggestions.

The topic is within the scope of the journal.

I still believe it is necessary to improve how figures, tables, and charts are cited. These citations should be smoothly integrated throughout the text and not appear in isolation at the end of paragraphs, as is the case in some parts of the file (e.g., lines 405, 418, 421...).

Some figures lack captions. I recommend providing captions (e.g., Figures 15, 16, 17...). Additionally, there are figures that include tables and charts together, as if they were a single figure. I suggest separating the tables from the figures, citing and referencing them individually.

The analyses have shown substantial improvement.

 

 

Author Response

Your commitment to helping us improve the manuscript is deeply appreciated, and your expertise has been instrumental in refining our work. Thank you once again for your exceptional support and guidance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments:

The manuscript provides a descriptive overview of the various projects in Riyadh, reflecting the city's ambition to align with Vision 2030 and enhancing its global stature. The focus is on architectural responses to globalization, especially in projects like KAPSARC, KAFD, and the Riyadh Metro Station. However, there are several critical aspects about the scientific rigor and impact of the paper.

Specific Comments:

1. Objective Criteria:
• The methodology lacks a robust framework for objectively comparing the projects against established benchmarks. It is essential to include specific criteria or metrics that allow for a fair and systematic comparison. The research would benefit from clarifying the research gaps and defining the innovative contributions more explicitly.
2. Methodology Concerns:
• The methodology described in the paper primarily involves descriptive analysis based on field visits, client inputs, and site photography. However, it does not provide an objective criteria framework to evaluate the projects' performance or their responses to globalization. The criteria listed in Chapter 8 are largely descriptive and fail to facilitate a meaningful comparison of the projects.
3. Evaluation Criteria:
• It is not clear how the simple description of aspects related to smart building technologies, sustainable design, and other elements can objectively compare the projects. The lack of quantitative or qualitative benchmarks significantly weakens the paper’s scientific contribution. The evaluation should include specific indicators or metrics, making the findings more robust and replicable.
4. Suitability for Audience:
• Given its current form, the paper appears more suited for an architecture magazine rather than a scientific journal. The lack of a detailed methodology and the challenges in replicating the study limit its potential as a reference work for the scientific community.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough feedback. Please review the attached file containing our responses to your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer acknowledges the effort invested in the preparation of this article. However, it is observed that the content is predominantly descriptive, with sections going deep into the historical aspects or past developments of the area under consideration. Consequently, the article lacks robust scientific discourse. It resembles a historical narrative with architectural critique and data that may originate from commercial resources describing the case studies.

You can definitely base a scientific article on the analysis of three case studies. Still, to compare the analyzed case studies, you must provide some objective numerical data to conduct such an analysis. The primary methodology employed by the authors is "descriptive", which prevents the comparability of the three distinct cases discussed.

The article's title suggests a focus on 'interpretation,' a very subjective concept. It is recommended that the authors establish explicit criteria for evaluating the case studies presented.

The comparison table presented by the authors is OK; however, the descriptive elements within should be exchanged with specific numerical values, potentially sourced from other studies or academic literature. The current format of the table renders interpretation challenging. Quantifying the categories and assigning numerical values on a standardized scale would be beneficial, thereby facilitating a measurable assessment. For instance, quantifying a category like 'cultural integration' poses a significant challenge. Maybe a survey could measure the reception of those problematic to evaluate categories?

Recommendations for Improvement:

 

The article requires substantial restructuring. A primary task is acquiring specific numerical data to characterize the features of the compared case studies. With such data, a meaningful comparison of the buildings is possible. It is crucial to ensure comparability within the same category— as to comparing 'apples to apples' rather than 'apples to oranges.' Utilizing this data, the authors can construct a numerical table to juxtapose the three case studies. This approach will enable an evaluation of how each case study satisfies the various categories and may lead to clear conclusions, such as identifying the "optimal building" or "optimal design strategy". 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some spelling mistakes have been detected. 

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough feedback. Please review the attached file containing our responses to your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an interesting topic. It is well explained and easy to read. The methodology and connection with historical experiences described before addressing the case study are correct. However, in this reviewer's opinion, the conclusions are few. After writing an extensive article, conclusions of greater depth and length are expected. In my opinion, this section should be improved.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough feedback. Please review the attached file containing our responses to your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Interpreting the current architectural scene in Riyadh from a globalization and sustainability perspective”, aims to evaluate the possibilities of improving Riyadh's architecture to be more interesting for globalization and quality of life. The cases studied presented the real situation of the influence of globalization in this field. The architectural effects of globalization are analyzed and analyze and discussions are made to understand these influences and consequences on the environment and culture. The balance between global influences and cultural authenticity is highlighted by the authors.

As a novelty, the authors cite an innovative approach to evaluating sustainable architectural practices in Riyadh. However, the summary and conclusions do not clearly demonstrate the novelty and importance of this research for academic and technical professionals. I suggest it should be further explored.

As strengths of the article, we can highlight the study of buildings of great architectural importance worldwide, bringing analyses of their innovative technology and architecture, with a view to environmental, technological, cultural, and community factors.

The article is within the scope of the Journal.

Some aspects must be improved in order to present a document suitable for publication:

1. Chapter 2 (line 67) is presented in the form of items, commenting on previous works on the topic. I suggest transforming it into a table with the work and detailing in the text what the authors did, how and, mainly, what their main discoveries were that will influence and help to define premises and evaluate results in the development of the present study. How previous studies are presented results in very superficial information to support the reader, and it is very important to highlight the contributions and conclusions of each of them.

2. Chapter 3: I suggest adding a flowchart of the methodology, illustrating the steps in a direct and easy-to-understand way.

3. Figures must always be cited in the text before being presented. This needs to be fixed.

4. The presentation of the sources of the figures must follow the Journal's standards.

5. The position of the citations at the end of each line is incorrect throughout the text. The citation must appear before the period at the end of the sentence. For example, in line 167: ...” Foundation in Riyadh, completed in 1984. [12]In 1980, the King Fahad International...”, the correct form is: “Foundation in Riyadh, completed in 1984 [12] . In 1980, the King Fahad International..."

6. There is a problem with formatting the number of lines in Figures 5 and 6 and others. Review the entire article.

7. Be careful with very long paragraphs. For example (but not as the only situation): Chapter 6, first paragraph. Try to divide it into smaller paragraphs, making the text more fluid.

8. Figure 7 needs to have a better resolution.

9. There are different line spacing formatting throughout the article. To review.

10. References 33 to 36 in the text are “superscripted”. See formatting (this is repeated on other pages of the article).

11. Line 503, correct parenthesis that is out of place: “...KAFD) has garnered...”.

12. Line 601: insert a period in the sentence.

13. Line 612: correct “ene rgy”.

14. Line 613: start paragraph with a capital letter.

15. Figure titles: titles must be direct and informative. I suggest avoiding very long texts with many explanations about the figures.

16. Line 643: correct “campus..[45] the project”.

17. The methodology employed for analyzing the case studies presented in Section 8 should appear in the Methodology section. It should be explained in a detailed way, citing the references used to establish these methods.

18. Table presented on pg. 20 don't have a title and a number, that have to appear in the text before it.

19. I suggest that the table presented with the results be divided, in order to present a table for each Factor, and after each one of them, comments should be made about what was presented.

20. In the table, under Cultural Factors, in the first column the text ends with a comma. Replace with period.

21. The “Overall evolution” at the end of the table could be taken off the table, appearing as a text of the section closeness.

22. In section 9, remove a period from the title.

23. I suggest combining sections 9 and 10, seeking to carry out a broader analysis of the results obtained in order to identify contributions from these case studies that can be applied to similar ones around the world.

- What is the main contribution of the work to this area of ​​knowledge and which could be applied to other cases?

- What's new?

24. Are there other works similar to that developed for other cities? These works could be cited to support the methodology and discussions.

25. I missed academic works from other parts of the world, drawing a comparison. The focus is basically on works from Arabia, with the work talking about globalization and sustainability in general terms. I suggest that further investigation be carried out in this regard.

 

26. In terms of sustainability and maintenance of cities' historical and cultural heritage, what strategies can be adopted? Which have already been adopted by other cities?

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough feedback. Please review the attached file containing our responses to your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Dear Authors,

Thank you for your revisions to the manuscript. Notably, you have incorporated a weighted scoring system to extract metrics from your evaluation, with the idea of allowing for comparison among case studies. 

However, there are still some aspects that need attention:

1.   Clarification of Methodology Status: The manuscript still does not fully address the status of similar analyses and methodologies at the international level, especially those aimed at analyzing sustainability and globalization criteria in urban scenes. This clarification is essential to justify the criteria adopted in Table 2.

2.     Scoring Criteria Justification: The scientific community needs to understand the rationale behind your scoring criteria. It is important to clarify whether these criteria are derived from established scientific backgrounds and references or if they are innovative contributions from the authors. Specifically, explain why existing international protocols for evaluating sustainability are not used, and highlight their limitations.

3.     Relation of Chapters 4, 5, 6 to Methodology: Chapters 4, 5, and 6 should be better integrated with the articulation of the methodology. They are currently too long, and the connection with indicators and evaluation criteria is not very clear.

4.     Evaluation Criteria for Scoring: In Table 2, apart from the assigned scoring, it is not clear how factors are measured and assessed. The evaluation criteria for the scoring should be clearly referenced and reported, possibly in an annex, to allow for proper assessment of the results.

5.     Replicability and Applicability of the Method: Ensure that the application and replicability of the method for other buildings are clear. A flowchart could help illustrate the entire methodological scheme, including inputs and outputs. Explain how other researchers can apply your method and what conditions are necessary for replication and applicability.

6.     Evaluation of Cultural Integration and Community Engagement: Provide objective criteria for evaluating aspects such as cultural integration and community engagement. Clarify the validity of these measures.

 

7.     Conclusions: Ensure that the conclusions are directly derived from the results. For instance, your statement about the excessive use of glass and the need to integrate Saudi Cultural Identity, the involvement of local architects, and new standards for urban development should be measured within your methodology. Specify the evaluation criteria and metrics for these aspects.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough feedback. Please review the attached file containing our responses to your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- The paper employs a case-study approach to analyze the architectural impacts of globalization in Riyadh, explicitly examining three projects. It mentions using data sources like field visits, client inputs, and site photography. Still, it lacks detailed explanations on how these data were quantitatively analyzed or how they contribute to verifiable conclusions. Without precise, quantitative analysis, the emphasis on descriptive methodologies may not suffice to test the hypotheses or claims made rigorously.

 

- It must be noted that this article seems to be a promotional text without a verifiable methodology for assessing the presented buildings. The proposed method for evaluating individual features of buildings on a weight scale is interesting but insufficiently justified. While awarding points for the LEED certificate is entirely objective, how categories such as "Cultural Integration" (10% weight) and "Community Engagement" (10% weight) are assessed remains unclear. It is unknown who makes these assessments and on what basis. Moreover, the assessed buildings receive very high ratings (e.g., 10 out of 10). The attempt to objectify in the evaluation is heading in the right direction; however, the criteria are still unclear, do not seem objective, and do not provide verifiable scientific results.

 

- The case studies mentioned (e.g., the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center and others) are described mostly in qualitative terms. There is a notable absence of detailed quantitative data or robust statistical analysis, which might be necessary to substantiate the claims about globalization's impacts on architecture. For instance, the discussions about sustainability practices and urban integration are primarily descriptive and lack empirical backing through specific, measurable outcomes.

The reliance on case studies without robust numerical data can introduce subjectivity, especially in a field like architecture, where aesthetic and design interpretations can be highly personal and culturally nuanced. Without solid data, such conclusions might be seen as anecdotal or biased.

In my opinion, every critical review should contain recommendations for improving the paper. In this particular case, I recommend that the authors analyze what type of verifiable information about those buildings they have and are ready to provide. Besides the LEED rating, interesting information might include: (i) the size of the building in square meters or in volumetric terms in cubic meters, (ii) the size of the envelope, (iii) the total glazed area—this seems very appropriate, as the heat load is admitted into the building mainly through the transparent part of the envelope, (iv) energy consumption per square meter, (v) the source of energy. If the authors use other 'soft' categories, they must objectively measure them, for example, through a survey. 'Cultural integration' is very vague; how is it measured? What 'culture' is taken into account?

Minor issues:

- In the context of the article, the relevance of the chapter 'The debate concerning globalization and identity' is unclear.

- The references are incorrectly formatted according to the APC/MDPI standard.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough feedback. Please review the attached file containing our responses to your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been greatly improved compared to the previous version. The changes enriched the work and clarified questions about the methodology and main contributions.

I noticed there were still missing citations of Tables in the text (e.g.: table 1 and table 2).
One aspect that still needs to be improved are the titles of tables and figures. Titles must be direct and explanatory.
Ex: " Table 02. : table summarizes the methodology steps. Sourse : Authors." -> It is not necessary to repeat "table" in the title. A suggested title would be: Table 2: methodology steps. Additionally, authors need to check how to correctly reference tables and figures.

As for calling out figures in the text before presenting them, the authors often added "Figure x" at the end of the paragraphs. Note that (Figure x) must appear before the end of the sentence and not after.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough feedback. Please review the attached file containing our responses to your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer regrets to inform that the manuscript submitted for re-evaluation still does not meet the fundamental requirements of a scientific paper. While the authors have included a diagram illustrating the research method, which is a positive development, significant issues still remain. The authors have clarified how the “weight” is assigned to categories such as Economic Integration and Social Engagement or Urban Connectivity, which is clear and unambiguous. However, they have not explained the criteria for assigning the points within the weights. Merely describing these weights is insufficient to create a verifiable tool for category assessment.

The reviewer finds that the manuscript falls short of scientific standards as it fails to clarify the methodology for assigning points to each category. The method is inadequately described, lacks objectivity, and is susceptible to considerable bias. The points assigned to individual buildings are not summarized in the article in a way that would generate an objective ranking for evaluation.

 

The reviewer concludes that, due to the absence of objective measures for assessing the case studies presented, the manuscript does not meet the stringent standards of scientific work. The results cannot be independently verified by other researchers, rendering the work more akin to architectural criticism than a scientific article, and thus, it is vulnerable to substantial bias.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough feedback. Please review the attached file containing our responses to your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf