Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I attached a file with comments. On the other hand, I noticed that you used AI for writing and I informed the editor.

Best Regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments – Reviewer 1

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. Below are our point-by-point responses to each comment raised.

Comment 1:

Abstract:
1- Please provide numerical results in the abstract section. You did not mention numerical results. In this way you can attract reader to continue.

Author Response:

Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the abstract to include key numerical findings.

Comment 2:

2- In my opinion it is better you remove “case study: A Case Study in Southern Jordan” from your title.

Author Response:

Thank you for the suggestion. The title has been corrected.

Comment 3:

Introduction:
1- You should write and give more references in introduction section. For example, in line 44 to 54 you can bring more references and works related to this issue.

Author Response:

Agree, Additional references have been added in the introduction section.

Comment 4:

2- Again in line 81 o 88 you should bring more references.

Author Response:

 Agree, We have included additional references in lines 81 to 88.

Comment 5:

Methodology:
1- You can improve the map for study area. This map I think is not suitable for a high quality paper like this.

Author Response:

Thank you for the suggestion. The study area map has been updated.

Comment 6:

2- Why you selected these factors? Why some factors like shopping areas are not between factors?

Author Response:

The selection of factors was based on relevance to university planning, expert consultation, and availability of consistent data. Factors like shopping areas were considered but excluded due to limited influence on long-term academic planning and lack of standardized spatial data. A new paragraph has been added to the methodology to explain that.

Comment 7:

3- You can produce a good flowchart with more details.

Author Response:

The flowchart (Figure 11) has been revised to include more detailed steps such as data collection, preprocessing, reclassification, weighting, and final suitability analysis.

Comment 8:

4- You can use references in methodology section, for example; in line 29 to 39.

Author Response:

We have added relevant citations to support the methodology section (lines 29 to 39).

Comment 9:

5- I think figures 3 and 4 are for methodology section because they are not result, and they are factors that you used to reach result.

Author Response:

 Thank you for the suggestion. We can’t remove it from the result section

Comment 10:

6- If you can, please improve the quality for figure11.

Author Response:

Figure 11 has been enhanced with improved resolution and clear labeling of each workflow stage to ensure readability and clarity.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I attached a file with comments. On the other hand, I noticed that you used AI for writing and I informed the editor.

Author Response:

 

We confirm that we used the AI tools (Open AI) during the manuscript preparation to improve the language, grammar, and rephrasing some sections. But the scientific content, including the research design, data analysis, maps, results, was developed by the authors

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The purpose of this study was to use a GIS based weighted overlay analysis to integrate multiple spatial criteria to select a suitable site for a new university in southern Jordan, taking an integrated approach to ensure sustainability, accessibility and community services. Overall, I think that this study needs a major revision. Here are my comments:

1. In the introduction, you only introduced the application of GIS method in site selection, why do you choose GIS method? Please elaborate in combination with the literature.
2. The research gap and the novelty of this study are not addressed in the introduction section.
3. When describing the application of GIS in site selection, please classify and summarize the application and achievements of GIS in different places.
4. Please introduce the study area from various aspects such as geographical location, climate type, landform and socio-economic conditions.
5. The map of the study area (Figure 1) is not clearly drawn, and lacks the longitude and latitude coordinates, DEM elevation data, land use data and other core elements. Besides, it is not clear what the upper and lower map describe? Need detailed explanations.
6. Ensure Figure 2 with high-resolution graphics and legible text.
7. Please provide a detailed description of the data sources used in this study.
8. Please provide a detailed description of the method used in this study.
9. Please check whether the title and content of 3.1 of this study are consistent.
10. The borders and in Figures 3~10 and 12 are incomplete. Please verify that the legend is correct. A detailed interpretation of the color codes in the legends should also be provided.
11. Please provide the rationale for selecting the key factors, and verify whether the layer names in Tables 1 and 2 are consistent.
12. Line 341 of the manuscript states that 'population and residential areas' have the highest weight (30%), whereas the Abstract indicates 'population density' as the highest-weighted factor (30%). Please verify and ensure consistency in these descriptions.
13. Please make sure the layer names are the same everywhere in the article.
14. It is mentioned in the paper that the weight is determined by the researchers. Is the weight completely dependent on subjective selection reliable?
15. Ensure Figure 11 with high-resolution graphics and legible text.
16. The discussion section should be based on the results of this study and should be combined with previous achievements to demonstrate the rationality of your site selection.
17. This study is university site selection research based on GIS, and only the results of weight allocation are reflected in the abstract and conclusion. The key information of optimal site selection should be summarized in the abstract, and the results of site selection should be clarified and its rationality explained in the conclusion.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

If the English of the article can be improved, it may be more conducive to publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

We thank the reviewer for the valuable and constructive comments. We have carefully addressed each point and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below are detailed responses to each comment and the corresponding changes made in the manuscript.

Comment 1:

In the introduction, you only introduced the application of GIS method in site selection. Why do you choose GIS method? Please elaborate in combination with the literature.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The introduction has been revised to explicitly explain why GIS was selected for this study. We have included comparisons with traditional methods and emphasized GIS's strengths in handling spatial complexity, objectivity, and multi-criteria integration. Relevant literature, including Mustaffa et al. (2021), Khazael and Al-Bakri (2021), and others, has been cited to support this rationale.

Comment 2:

The research gap and the novelty of this study are not addressed in the introduction section.

Response:

We have revised the introduction to clearly state the research gap—namely, the lack of GIS-based studies focused on university site selection in southern Jordan—and articulated the novelty of this study in terms of its regional focus, integration of diverse criteria, and use of Model Builder automation.

Comment 3:

When describing the application of GIS in site selection, please classify and summarize the application and achievements of GIS in different places.

Response:

We have expanded the section on GIS applications and categorized them based on domain and location, such as educational planning (e.g., Malaysia, Indonesia), environmental management (Iraq, Vietnam), and urban services (Iran, Egypt).

Comment 4:

Please introduce the study area from various aspects such as geographical location, climate type, landform and socio-economic conditions.

Response:

We revised the “Study Area” section to include detailed descriptions of geographical coordinates, climate classification, topographic characteristics (e.g., elevation ranges), and socio-economic data (e.g., population distribution, educational service access).

Comment 5:

The map of the study area (Figure 1) is not clearly drawn, and lacks the longitude and latitude coordinates, DEM elevation data, land use data and other core elements. Besides, it is not clear what the upper and lower map describe. Need detailed explanations.

Response:

Figure 1 has been redesigned to include clear latitude and longitude gridlines, DEM hillshade, and land use overlays. Map elements have been clarified, and the caption now explains the purpose of each map element.

Comment 6:

Ensure Figure 2 with high-resolution graphics and legible text.

Response:

Figure 2 has been replaced with a high-resolution version with enhanced clarity and readable labels for all components.

Comment 7:

Please provide a detailed description of the data sources used in this study.

Response:

A new paragraph has been added to the methodology, detailing each data layer, its source (e.g., ASTER, OSM, Jordan Ministry of Planning), format, resolution, and year of acquisition.

Comment 8:

Please provide a detailed description of the method used in this study.

Response:

The methodology section has been expanded to explain all steps, including DEM processing, Euclidean distance analysis, reclassification, KDE implementation, weighted overlay modeling, and the use of Model Builder in ArcGIS.

Comment 9:

Please check whether the title and content of 3.1 of this study are consistent.

Response:

Section 3.1 has been revised to ensure consistency between the title and content. The section now clearly focuses on terrain suitability analysis, aligning with the title.

Comment 10:

The borders in Figures 3–10 and 12 are incomplete. Please verify that the legend is correct. A detailed interpretation of the color codes in the legends should also be provided.

Response:

All figures (3–10 and 12) have been revised to include complete map borders, corrected legends, and detailed descriptions of the color-coded classifications in the figure captions.

Comment 11:

Please provide the rationale for selecting the key factors, and verify whether the layer names in Tables 1 and 2 are consistent.

Response:

The rationale for factor selection has been added to section 2.2, with reference to relevant literature. Layer names in Tables 1 and 2 have been reviewed and made consistent throughout the manuscript.

Comment 12:

Line 341 of the manuscript states that 'population and residential areas' have the highest weight (30%), whereas the Abstract indicates 'population density' as the highest-weighted factor (30%). Please verify and ensure consistency in these descriptions.

Response:

The terminology has been unified throughout the manuscript. “Population and residential areas” is now consistently used in the Abstract, Results, and Tables to reflect the combined input from KDE and residential proximity layers.

Comment 13:

Please make sure the layer names are the same everywhere in the article.

Response:

We have carefully reviewed and standardized the layer names across the entire manuscript, including text, tables, and figure captions.

Comment 14:

It is mentioned in the paper that the weight is determined by the researchers. Is the weight completely dependent on subjective selection reliable?

Response:

A paragraph has been added to the methodology discussing the subjective nature of weight assignment, justification based on expert opinion and literature.

Comment 15:

Ensure Figure 11 with high-resolution graphics and legible text.

Response:

Figure 11 has been replaced with a clean, high-resolution version with readable text and a logical flowchart structure, illustrating the weighted overlay process.

Comment 16:

The discussion section should be based on the results of this study and should be combined with previous achievements to demonstrate the rationality of your site selection.

Response:

A new discussion section has been added.

Comment 17:

This study is university site selection research based on GIS, and only the results of weight allocation are reflected in the abstract and conclusion. The key information of optimal site selection should be summarized in the abstract, and the results of site selection should be clarified and its rationality explained in the conclusion.

Response:

The Abstract and Conclusion sections have been fully revised to include the key findings, including that 8% of the study area was classified as highly suitable, with three top sites scoring above 85% suitability. The rationale for their selection gentle slope, proximity to roads and population, and distance from hazards has been explicitly stated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper utilized the GIS tool for identifying university locations in South Jordan. Authors described the processes in detail and showed experiment results. However, overall, this paper has little novelty and scientific contribution for GIS and sustainability science.  Detailed comments are as follows:

1. The paper mentions assigning weights (e.g., 30% to population density) but lacks a transparent justification for these values. Clarify whether weights were derived from expert surveys, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), or prior literature. If subjective, acknowledge this limitation and discuss sensitivity analysis (e.g., how results might change with alternative weightings).
​​2.Provide metadata for datasets (e.g., DEM resolution, population data year, road network accuracy). Specify how missing/inconsistent data were handled (e.g., interpolation for sparse population data).
3 .​​Figure 10​​: Add a legend explaining the suitability scale (1–10) and ensure color gradients are distinguishable for colorblind readers. Include spatial reference (coordinates, scale bar).
​​4. Figure 11：Label workflow steps (e.g., “Data Collection,” “Reclassification”) to enhance readability.
​​5. Statistical Validation​​: Include quantitative metrics (e.g., AUC-ROC for model accuracy) to validate suitability classifications against ground-truth data or existing facilities.
6. Compare results with similar GIS-based studies to highlight regional uniqueness or methodological advances. For example, discuss why population density outweighs environmental factors in this case versus other regions.
7. Address potential biases, such as reliance on Euclidean distance (which may not reflect real-world travel time) or exclusion of socioeconomic factors (e.g., land ownership costs, political constraints).
​​8.​ Revise for consistency in terminology (e.g., “GIS” vs. “Geographic Information Systems”) and fix minor errors (e.g., “accessibility” misspelled in Abstract).
​​Abbreviation Definitions​​: Define all acronyms on first use (e.g., DEM, KDE, AHP).
​​9. ​​Cite recent works (post-2020) on university site selection to demonstrate awareness of evolving methodologies.
10. Share processed datasets or code (e.g., Model Builder scripts) via a repository (e.g., Zenodo, GitHub) to ensure reproducibility.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments, which have contributed significantly to improving the quality of our manuscript. Please find below our detailed responses to each point.

Reviewer Comment 1:
The paper mentions assigning weights (e.g., 30% to population density) but lacks a transparent justification for these values. Clarify whether weights were derived from expert surveys, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), or prior literature. If subjective, acknowledge this limitation and discuss sensitivity analysis (e.g., how results might change with alternative weightings).

Author Response:
A paragraph has been added to the methodology discussing the subjective nature of weight assignment, justification based on expert opinion and literature.

Reviewer Comment 2:
Provide metadata for datasets (e.g., DEM resolution, population data year, road network accuracy). Specify how missing/inconsistent data were handled (e.g., interpolation for sparse population data).

Author Response:
Thank you for this important suggestion. A new paragraph has been added to the methodology, detailing each data layer

Reviewer Comment 3:
Figure 10: Add a legend explaining the suitability scale (1–10) and ensure color gradients are distinguishable for colorblind readers. Include spatial reference (coordinates, scale bar).

Author Response:
We have revised Figure 10 to include a clear legend explaining the 1–10 suitability scale.

Reviewer Comment 4:
Figure 11: Label workflow steps (e.g., “Data Collection,” “Reclassification”) to enhance readability.

Author Response:
Figure 11 has been updated as suggested. Each workflow step is now labeled.

Reviewer Comment 5:
Statistical Validation: Include quantitative metrics (e.g., AUC-ROC for model accuracy) to validate suitability classifications against ground-truth data or existing facilities.

Author Response:
A new paragraph has been added before Figure 12 explained the statistical Validation.

Reviewer Comment 6:
Compare results with similar GIS-based studies to highlight regional uniqueness or methodological advances. For example, discuss why population density outweighs environmental factors in this case versus other regions.

Author Response:
A new paragraph has been added to discuss section.

Reviewer Comment 7:
Address potential biases, such as reliance on Euclidean distance (which may not reflect real-world travel time) or exclusion of socioeconomic factors (e.g., land ownership costs, political constraints).

Author Response:
The weighting of criteria in this study was based on a combination of literature review, expert consultation, and contextual relevance to southern Jordan. While the final weights were assigned by the research team, they were informed by prior studies and validated through expert judgment to ensure alignment with local planning needs.

Reviewer Comment 8:
Revise for consistency in terminology (e.g., “GIS” vs. “Geographic Information Systems”) and fix minor errors (e.g., “accessibility” misspelled in Abstract).
Abbreviation Definitions: Define all acronyms on first use (e.g., DEM, KDE, AHP).

Author Response:
The manuscript has been reviewed and revised to ensure consistency in terminology. “Geographic Information System (GIS)” and other acronyms (e.g., DEM, KDE, AHP) are now defined upon first use. Typographical errors have also been corrected.

Reviewer Comment 9:
Cite recent works (post-2020) on university site selection to demonstrate awareness of evolving methodologies.

Author Response:
a new study has been added

Reviewer Comment 10:
Share processed datasets or code (e.g., Model Builder scripts) via a repository (e.g., Zenodo, GitHub) to ensure reproducibility.

Author Response:
All relevant datasets and GIS Model Builder scripts have been prepared for sharing.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All of comments have been done correctly.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments – Reviewer 1

We sincerely appreciate the constructive feedback provided by Reviewer 1. We are pleased to confirm that all reviewer comments and suggestions have been carefully addressed and fully implemented in the revised manuscript. 

Comment 1:
“All of comments have been done correctly.”

Author Response:
Thank you for your positive feedback. We are grateful for your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the introduction section, please refer to the literature to classify and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different location selection methods, and highlight the advantages of the GIS method you use.
2. Section 2.1 should provide a general overview of the research field rather than a categorized elaboration.
3. Ensure Figure 1 is clear, with high-resolution graphics and legible text.
4. Please provide the data sources of this study in the text.
5. Please ensure that the text format in Figures 3 to 10 and 11 is uniform and that the figures have a high resolution.

6.Please explain in detail the meanings represented by the different colors and numbers in the legends of the figures in the text.

7. In the discussion section, please verify the rationality of your results in combination with the literature and highlight the innovations and limitations of this study.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments – Reviewer 2

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer 2 for their insightful and constructive comments, which have helped improve the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed response to each comment and explain the corresponding revisions made in the manuscript.

Comment 1:
“In the introduction section, please refer to the literature to classify and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different location selection methods, and highlight the advantages of the GIS method you use.”

Response:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. New paragraph had been added to introduction to classify and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different location selection methods, and highlight the advantages of the GIS method you use

Comment 2:
“Section 2.1 should provide a general overview of the research field rather than a categorized elaboration.”

Response:
We agree with this comment and have revised Section 2.1 to present a general overview of the field of GIS-based site selection for educational infrastructure

Comment 3:
“Ensure Figure 1 is clear, with high-resolution graphics and legible text.”

Response:
Figure 1 had been reviewed with a high-resolution version.

Comment 4:
“Please provide the data sources of this study in the text.”

Response:
We have added the data sources at section 2.2.

Comment 5:
“Please ensure that the text format in Figures 3 to 10 and 11 is uniform and that the figures have a high resolution.”

Response:
all figure had been reviewed.

Comment 6:
“Please explain in detail the meanings represented by the different colors and numbers in the legends of the figures in the text.”

Response:
We have explained the meaning of each color and number shown in the legends.

Comment 7:
“In the discussion section, please verify the rationality of your results in combination with the literature and highlight the innovations and limitations of this study.”

Response:
We have revised the Discussion section to include a comparative analysis of our findings with similar studies in the literature.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I deeply appreciate the authors' contributions to improving the quality of this paper. However, I only have one major concern about this paper. What is the novelty and contribution to the field of GIS applied to sustainability in this study?  I did not figure out the innovations of this paper. Authors should present their innovative contributions or finds, otherwise, this work still needs more revisions.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments – Reviewer 3

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer 3 for their insightful and constructive comments, which have helped improve the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed response to each comment and explain the corresponding revisions made in the manuscript.

 

Comment:
“I deeply appreciate the authors' contributions to improving the quality of this paper. However, I only have one major concern about this paper. What is the novelty and contribution to the field of GIS applied to sustainability in this study? I did not figure out the innovations of this paper. Authors should present their innovative contributions or finds, otherwise, this work still needs more revisions.”

Author Response:
We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for this important observation. In response, we have revised the Introduction section of the manuscript to clearly highlight the novelty and contributions of our study. 

 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been greatly improved after the author's revision, but there are still a few minor issues that need to be revised before publication.

1. Please ensure that figure 1, figure 5a, figure 5b, figure 10 has a high resolution and is readable.
2. Please provide the sources and website addresses of the basic data for this study in the text.
3. Please improve the clear reading of the text in figure 11.

Author Response

 

Reviewer Comment 1:
Please ensure that figure 1, figure 5a, figure 5b, figure 10 has a high resolution and is readable.

Response:
Thank you. We have replaced Figures 1, 5a, 5b, and 10 with high-resolution versions.

Reviewer Comment 2:
Please provide the sources and website addresses of the basic data for this study in the text.

Response:
Thank you for your comment. The sources of the basic data used in this study have already been mentioned in the text (Section 2); however, official website addresses and formal citations were not included because some of the datasets were obtained through direct communication with local institutions in Jordan and are not available online.

Reviewer Comment 3:
Please improve the clear reading of the text in figure 11.

Response:
We have improved Figure 11, all text is now easier to read.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors still need to address what is their new idea or findings？ At present form, this paper just solely an application of the GIS-based method.

Thanks for your revisions.

Author Response

Reviewer Comment:
The authors still need to address what is their new idea or findings. At present form, this paper just solely an application of the GIS-based method.

Author Response:
Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, we have added a dedicated paragraph at the end of Section 2.1 to clarify the novelty and key contributions of our study. Unlike previous studies that apply GIS methods in a general planning context, our work introduces a tailored, equity-focused framework specifically designed for southern Jordan. This includes the integration of Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) with weighted overlay analysis to prioritize underserved areas, the inclusion of distance from existing universities as an exclusion criterion to avoid redundancy, and the incorporation of critical service accessibility and environmental safety factors. Additionally, we automated the entire spatial analysis process using ArcGIS Model Builder to enhance transparency and reproducibility. These methodological enhancements and the finding that only 8% of the region meets the strict suitability criteria demonstrate the originality and practical significance of our approach.