Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The results of the specific analysis on Al Khobar and the specific interventions that result should be better highlighted.

Otherwise it seems that the proposed precautionary elements regarding Covid are only derived from the references and other contexts.

You need to re-read the text to eliminate writing errors, such as:

- line 150, errata/corrige: peccaries/practise (?)

Author Response

Thanks for the appreciated comments; I believe the research became apparent after the correction. I acknowledge the effort by the respecting reviewer. I improved it.

I updated the results and the conclusion to present it. I improved the overall research text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Th topic is highly interesting and up to date, but major restructuring and more scientific basement is necessary. More characteristically defined objectives would be useful. Objective as to discuss something is not really precisely defined.

The scientific approach needs to be enhanced. The research is not clear, what kind of data was used.

In the introduction the use of waterfront areas and Covid should be presented more detailed and the scientific course about it. And furthermore, generally such topic as the value of the waterfront for the society and economy in such (116)  coastal cities with sveral citations supposed to be in the introduction/background part and Materials and methods should focus on the pilot site and the description of the reseach methods and databases.

Major restructuring is necessary – clear description of methodology – at the present some basics are written in the introductory part lines 67-75

what is the methodology? No real methods written.

What kind of data was used? What kind of analysis methods were used?

Not clear is the following:

“Three primary levels for returning stages are via preparation of the site:

• Infrastructure and facilities

• Staff and volunteers

• Visitors and activities” – what is the meaning of this?

which organizations guidelines are examined? Just UK Government, No other?

 

Please build connection between the text and figures by citing the figures in the text and also text and tables!

Considering text style, sometimes too short sentences – for example line 57, „It will study the state of the society and economy there.”  Who/where? all sentences need to be understandable and clear.

What are the scientific results? The guidelines?

Tables 4-7-  how these relate to the text? what is the meaning of the tables?

In the Discussion part a GIS application is highlighted to control the activities? Who has developed it? You need to integrate this better into the logical flow of the research!  Is this the solution for controling Covid?

What is EOI?

Author Response

Thanks for the appreciated comments; I believe the research became apparent after the correction. I acknowledge the effort by the respecting reviewer. I improved the overall research text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It seems that the article was written quickly, with several typos and unclear parts. Nevertheless, I am more perplexed by the content issues. I refer in particular to the cited bibliography, in which I have not found the norms relative to the decisions taken in Saudi Arabia regarding the COVID-19 outbreak. The author indicates the ones from the UK, but were they adopted in Saudi Arabia? Apart from that, I wonder what the core of the article is since the data review is unclear, as the story behind the article is. The waterfront of Al Khobar was a substantial investment and offers many services to the local population and tourists, so, understandably, its closure has produced a loss in economic and social terms. The author suggests some measures for a serene and functional reopening but, apart from common sense rules to which we are now all accustomed, are these the norms that have been taken into consideration by local authorities for the reopening? Did the author have a role in local decision-making? All these things are not clear and have left me confused even at the fifth reading of the article. For this reason, I advise reconsidering the article after major revision. It must be made clear at what historical moment the article stands (during the lockdown of 2020 or after it?), what were the detailed measures and recommendations adopted locally, and whether there was an author’s participation in the local decision-making process for the reopening and, if there has not been, what are the similarities and differences between what the author suggests and what is put into practice. I think the idea is interesting, but it needs to be better developed.

Author Response

Thanks very much for the valuable comments, after the correction I believe the research became clear. I appreciate, I attached my replying upon the comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Yes, the paper is improved.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I congratulate the author on the effective changes made to the article. The text has improved a lot and each part is much more coherent and clear than before. For this reason, I accept the article without requiring further adjustments in the text.

 

Anyway, I accept it after minor revision only to give the author time to make a final spell checking: 

I noted the following typos:

 

Line 97 - Background needs the capital

 

Line 104 - the dot at the end of the sentence is missing

 

Line 240 - Figure needs the capital; there are two dots at the end of the sentence

 

Line 265 - why the word waterfront is repeated twice?

 

Moreover, figures numbers and citations in the text need checking, especially from line 265.

 

I believe this study can actually contribute to the field and I look forward to its publication.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf