Using Local Knowledge and Remote Sensing in the Identification of Informal Settlements in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The remarks are in the word document as attached
( reviewjune18.docx)
The topic is very interesting.
The BIG difference with other shanty towns ( Mexico city ?? Cape Town ??
https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.846014,18.7466123,3a,75y,145.09h,89.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sECdRofO5BQN9GUI8itCDzA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
should be highlighted more.
I like the Fig 3. but it looks VERY different then what readers imagine when they talk about shanty towns
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Thank you so much for your valuable feedback for which I thank you.
Please find the attached file.
Regard
Khlood
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
This submission was resubmitted as a new manuscript after 3 rounds of revisions. The quality of the paper has been improved and the authors have answered the reviewers' questions and recommend it for acceptance.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you so much for your comments, The manuscript has undergone English language editing by MDPI.
Please find the attached file.
Regard
Khlood
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The article is very complex. There are many methods in the same article. Since the methodology is, in my opinion, innovative and replicable in other contexts and for similar applications, I appreciated it and do not feel I can suggest any changes.
Author Response
Thank you a lot for your comments
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
The manuscript “Using Local Knowledge and Remote Sensing in the Identification of Informal Settlements in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia” has an attractive subject, is well organized, and I believe can contribute to the literature in the domain. There are few changes required to be made before I recommend it for publication. Please my comments as follows.
1. The introduction section is too long. I suggest considering a separate section for literature review (research background). Also, the aims and objectives of the research and the research questions considered should be better explained. Please also add a paragraph to the end of introduction section to explain the structure and organization of the paper.
2. I suggest adding more information to the literature review regarding the application of AHP and high-resolution imagery using remote-sensing. For instance, regarding the application of remote sensing, authors can use the paper titled “Drought assessment in paddy rice fields using remote sensing technology towards achieving food security and SDG2”.
3. In line 257, the references mentioned have an issue.
4. Please check to make sure the full form of abbreviations used are present in the manuscript.
5. The manuscript requires careful proofreading.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please also open the attached Word file:
The settlements you describe are quite different then "normal informal" settlement detection ( I have seen some research on Yemen, where most of these settlements are very new constructions )
This is very special and can be elaborated. Most of your settlements of interest might be found in old cadastral maps. This information would be good to show or to discuss
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript titled “Using Local Knowledge and Remote Sensing in the Identification of Informal Settlements in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia” (Manuscript ID: remotesensing- 2289903) presents a procedure for detecting informal settlements by using expert knowledge and OBIA. My main concerns and questions about the manuscript are:
1. Due to the fact that the informal settlements are setlements developed without plan, I think for this kind of study the urban plans (old and present) should be used. The unplanned developed regions should be determined and used as reference data.
2. How did you judged the optimal bands of Worldview 3? Why the other bands were not used in this study? How did you use Sobel filter to define the best spectral band that can be used for image processing?
3. The aim of using sobel filter is not clear and why did you choose Sobel filter? The authors say that “The results of the Sobel filter shown better results and also improved classification performance.” Better than what? Did you used any other edge detection filter? How did you say that improved classification? Did you perform the classification with using Sobel filter and without?
4. How did you compute the nDSM image? Where did you use nDSM? What is the difference between DSM and DEM used in this study?
5. How did you determine the compactness and shape parameters in OBIA?
6. In Figure 3 caption what the Wcompt stands for? I think one of the Wcompt value should be shape, isn’t it? In this caption “This shows informal, formal and vacant segments” sentence is not clear. I think these segments can not be differentiated in this figure.
7. To clearly demonstrate the importance of integrating expert knowledge with classification you should compare the classification results that use expert knowledge with classification result that did ot use expert knowledge.
8. As far as I understood from the manuscript the authors used segmented sampling image as reference. I think a reference image should be more reliable data.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This is a very good work, caring for the vulnerable. However, there are some issues that need to be improved before publication.
1) Line 8, list the details of "many issues".
2) Line 13, use development->use development.
3) Line 14, then Map, remove comma.
4) Line 17, Expert -> Local
5) Figure 1, capation neighborhoodhoods -> area
6) Line 174, figure 2 -> figure 1
7) Line 242, delete "in this study"
8) Line 257, citation of reference is wrong
9) Section 3.1, the survey you conducted does not support an objective evaluation of local knowledge
10) Line 167, Kappa -> Kappa coefficient
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
