Spatial Modeling for Residential Optimization in Dukuh Atas Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Area, Jakarta, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper describes a quantitative analysis to assess  the housing density  in order to optimize land capability by using  Geographic Information System (GIS). In particular, the study is perdormed on Dukuh Atas TOD area in the metropolitan city of Jakarta.

The paper is well written, however I suggest:

1. to insert the bibliographic references to the mathematical relationships and remote sensing data;

2. to add more information on the remote sensing data (e.g., how many, which observation period ?) and on the software used (e.g., which GIS software ?);

3. the title is misleading as it talks about remote sensing technique, however only a "classical" DVBI is calculated from optical images (Sentinel 2A), which generally are already implemented in different GIS environments. Therefore, the title should be changed to indicate that the proposed procedure "also" includes information from remotely sensed data.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I think that your work is an interesting study.

Yet, it needs a lot of improvement before being further considered.

Please, in the following you may find some remark about your submission:

·         The title could include Jakarta instead of Dukush Atas. This increase the readership of your article

·         The manuscript needs a profound language editing by a professional! Starting from the very first sentence of the introduction, there are parts to be improved. Please, avoid long sentences.

·         Line 95-96: effectiveness of the TOD concept [22]. ????

·         There are language inconsistencies regarding the verb times!!! This study intends vs. this study focused…

·         The hypothesis and the goals of the study are not clearly delivered in the introduction part. At this stage they are very general.

·         The open version of TOD must be given once in the first usage. Later you must use the abbreviation throughout the text.

·         The selection criteria of the study area are not clearly provided in section 2.

·         Figure1 must include a larger map showing where Jakarta is located within the international context (in reference to other cities of Indonesia)

·         What do you mean by secondary data in section 2.2?!

·         Lines 141-146: Please, give clear timeframes of the utilized data! Avoid generalist statements.

·         Figure 2 is not the best picture you can present to show the dense settlements in the area. And, please add an authentic image shot by your team. Using street view images can be misleading as many of them are outdated.

·         The detailed explanation of the Research Approach in section 2.3 can be simplified in a research workflow diagram. It can show the stages via keywords and short sentences.

·         The method of the score value assignment in table 1 is not clearly explained. How did you decide on each score value?

·         Lines 269-274: if you label by numbers you should continue the same logic for the subdivisions into 10 classes by labelling 1.1, 1.2, 2.1…etc.

·         You could present side by side the existing and planned land use maps and pie charts. This not only reduce the number of figures but will help to make a visual comparison between current and plan.

·         Figure 7: what does the “blue spaces” refer to? For a first time reader it implies for the water surfaces!?

·         The larger two reference maps could be enough only in the Figure 1. The remaining maps in Figure 3, 5, 8, 9… must include only the study are map shown larger.

·         Some figures are not cited in the body text. Every figure must be cited in the text before its appearance!

·         Please, cross check if all cited sources are listed in the references list and vice versa.

·         Reference 25 seems not correct. The name of the author!!!?

Thank you!

Kind Regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

We have accommodated all the suggestions and used English language editing services by professionals. Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Due to the high level of urbanization and limited remaining land within the city, the paper aims to employ a quantitative GIS model to find the most optimal spaces for future residential development. The analyses are based on environmental carrying capacity and accessibility. The data collection and methodology are sound, and the discussion is rich and addresses tangible problems in the city; however, I have a few concerns:

 

1.     Line 16: "FAR (Floor Area Ratio)" As you have done for other abbreviations, the first time that you use them, mention the full name followed by the acronyms in parentheses.  Same for: "MRT (Mass Rapid Transit)," etc.

2.     If it is suitable for the journal style, I would recommend that the authors provide a list of abbreviations at the end of the paper (they are so many and confusing).

3.     The first sentence of the introduction (lines 28–30) needs citation.

4.     For km2, use superscript.

5.     Please provide citations (links) for "Governor's Regulation" and "Regional Regulation" whenever they are first mentioned in the text.

6.     If (only if) the secondary data is publicly available, please provide a link when you explain it in the section "Data Source."

7.     If "Figure 2" is a Google Street View image, please cite it properly. I would advise you to use your own images if you have access to the area. I must also mention that the image does not show what would normally constitute a dense settlement. I think in your paper population density is targeted; in the image, although the density of the building footprint is high, the low-rise character of the area does not indicate a high population density.

8.     Line 155: "questionnaires," but what kind of questionnaires? The word has only been mentioned once in the manuscript.

9.     Line 156: "research by Rakhmatulloh & Kusumo Dewi (2020)" is not properly cited and does not appear in the bibliography. This paragraph in general is very confusing, it is not clear what parts of which dataset you have used.

10.  Can you provide a citation for the "Environmental Carrying Capacity" formula? The formula looks strange. First, ???m=(???/?p)/α is same as ???m= ??? / (Jp * α). Second, no clear explanation (or range) regarding the α is mentioned in the text.

11.  The text mentions "religious areas" as a category of land use, but the graphs use the term "spiritual." Please make sure that the text and figures use similar terminology.

12.  I am concerned about the "blue" spaces; why are they included in the analysis? Waterways, for example, are marked as "other activities" in the "Atlas Land Use," but as "blue open spaces" in the overlay, and will eventually appear as "no conform" in the overlay. I think you need to explain this in the paper. In figure 10, it is even given a priority (minimum, but a number) for residential development. Where? Over the water?

13.  Figure 4 is very difficult to read, please replace it with a par chart.

14.  I think the concepts of "concept of one-stop living" and "5-10 minutes’ walk" are essential parts of the paper's objective, but they are not cited properly and are buried under a highly technical text. I recommend that you bring it forth, cite it, and make it more visible.

15.  In formula (4), x is not the proper IS symbol for multiplication*.

16.  "Author Contributions" does not follow the journal’s guidelines; please check and fix it.

 

17.  Walking distance which is mentioned as one of the main objectives of the study is nowhere to be found in the conclusion, please address the objective of the study properly in the conclusion. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for considering most of the suggested issues!

I think that the manuscript is greatly improved.

Yet, the following minor issues remains to be revised before its acceptance:

·         1- Still the colors in Figure 4 are misleading. What does blue open spaces refer to? What kind of land-use land cover? The same color with water surfaces is not good.

·         2-It seems that Figure 8 is wrong. Both images are almost the same! Please, check and replace accordingly. And please, present as you have done with Figure 4, both maps in equal size. In Caption text of figures which have more than 1 image, you must indicate (a), (b)… for each image included in the same caption.

·         3- I still think that the larger reference maps in Figure 4, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are not necessary. The reader already knows where the study area is located, referring to your Figure 1. In the other figures it is not helpful, and must be removed.

Thank you for your understanding!

Kind Regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Thank you for all suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I commend the authors for this thorough revision in such a short time frame. 

Well done. 

Author Response

Thank you for all suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf