GIS-Based Landscape Character Assessment as a Tool for Landscape Architecture Design: A Case Study from Saudi Arabia

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Your precise evaluation of this paper, "GIS-Based Landscape Character Assessment as a Tool for Landscape Architecture Design: A Case Study from Saudi Arabia," is greatly appreciated.  Your careful evaluation and insightful feedback are of tremendous educational value in enhancing the quality of this paper. Additionally, they will serve as a profound source of motivation for us to persist in our comprehensive research on landscape character assessment. We have carefully reviewed and discussed the reviewers' comments, and we have responded to and revised them individually. The parts that have been clarified or corrected have been annotated in red font for your convenience. The revision note is attached to the paper; please review it.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: This article discusses the spatial development project for the academic campus at King Khalid University in the Southern Province of Saudi Arabia. The design process was preceded by a pre-design analysis: Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). The work presented in this article is one of the entries submitted to an international competition. The presented project is briefly described, and the central part of the article focuses on the results of the pre-design research. The spatial development project for the campus is interesting, and the Landscape Character Assessment was conducted correctly. Still, it isn't easy to discern the relationship between these two parts of the work.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out this important oversight. To address this, we have significantly revised Section “3.5. KUU Landscape Master Plan”. These revisions now clarify the methodological lineage the relationship between the design concept and the landscape character assessment map and explicitly highlighted in the Figure 10 which we have add.

The added explanation in Lines 590-623 states:

“The LCA map, shown in Figure 8, represents the site area’s character importance levels, ranging in color from the least value presented in red to the high value in green. In the light of mat-ecologies theory, the design decisions regarding the masterplan's seven zones, highlighted in Figures 10 and 11, respond to the high-importance LCA zones as follows:

Zone 01: It comprises a central plaza, event space, and food and beverage buildings and creates a vibrant social and cultural hub for the wide university campus. It was intentionally designed in a flat terrain with high visibility from the surrounding landscape. This area allows for flexible open space, accessibility, and visual connection to the rocky backdrop.  In the central plaza, a retention water pond is integrated along the natural water collection corridor, in alignment with the hydrological setting map, which acts as an aesthetic and sustainable drainage feature.

Zone 02: The camping site is located on a mountainous topography in the high landscape character value zone that features steep landforms and dense vegetation. This increases privacy for the camping units and maintains their natural setting and intriguing landscape features.

Zone 03: The orchard park is strategically situated in the rocky landscape zone, identified as a high-value area according to the LCA results map. This setting is distinguished by a rugged formation, scattered native vegetation, and visual drama, making the park a place to relax, exercise, and socialize.

Zone 04: This zone comprises the botanical garden and the library plaza and resembles Zone 01 in terms of the flat terrain setting and the high visibility from surrounding buildings and hills. It is easily accessed from surrounding buildings and the main pedestrian route.

Zone 05: According to the LCA, this mountainous zone achieves a high level of im-portance due to its physical dominance, landmark quality, and visual connectivity across the wide landscape. It sits at the main gateway to the campus, featuring a welcoming landscape and strong identity. Hence, it was occupied by the observation platform that can provide an expansive 360° panoramic view of the campus and the surrounding landscape.

Zone 06: In accordance with the LCA results, the investment zone is recognized as an area with a high level of landscape importance and accommodates the investment architecture of commerce, offices, and hotels. It occupies a flat terrain that is suitable for construction and is integrated with the nearby rocky hill.”

Comments 2: To conduct a meaningful landscape assessment and valuation, many factors must be considered. Many of these cannot be presented on maps without detailed fieldwork, participant observations, and interviews with land users, among other methods. Design decisions cannot be made solely based on landscape character assessment, which assesses only land use and land cover (LULC), landforms, and hydrological conditions. This should be clear from this article! It's worth emphasizing that there is no single universal landscape research method, and each time, it should be selected and developed for a specific location. What works in European landscapes may not always work in Australia, Asia, or Africa. LCA is undoubtedly a good method, but it should not necessarily be used on such a scale when designing an academic campus.

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment regarding the limitations of the proposed method for using GIS to evaluate landscape character. In response, we have added a detailed explanation in the revised manuscript to discuss the strength and weakness of the proposed method and its position in the spectrum of various landscape character assessment methods.

The added explanation in Lines 745-757 states:

“A comprehensive landscape assessment and valuation requires consideration of numerous factors. Numerous elements cannot be effectively represented on maps without comprehensive fieldwork, participant observations, and interviews with land users, among other methodologies. Design decisions should not rely exclusively on landscape character assessment, which evaluates only physical components of the landscape. Considering that, there is no universally applicable landscape research method; rather, each method must be tailored and developed for a specific location. This study does not offer a conclusive method for evaluating landscape character based exclusively on physical landscape elements such as landforms; instead, it introduces an adaptable approach that allows for the inclusion of supplementary physical components in the analysis. This method is one of several proposed approaches for evaluating landscape character.  It is advisable to utilize this approach alongside other methods to address their limitations in processing visual and aesthetic data.”

Comments 3: If a landscape analysis precedes the design process, its results should clearly indicate what requires special attention during the design process. This analysis should reveal the problems occurring in the space and how to address them in the land development process. Can such conclusions be drawn from the study? Should we use the same assessment scale in every location, considering the same landscape components and assessing them only on a three-point scale?

Response 3: Thank you very much for the valuable revision suggestions put forward by the reviewers. We have added a new paragraph to clearly articulate where is the LCA from the design process, and how was its output used to assist the designer.

The added explanation in Lines 577-585 states:

“The design process underwent multiple phases.  Initially, the team gathered the required data to comprehend the nature of the site. The team conducted a site visit, investigated the site, and interviewed stockholders to collect this data. Alongside the data gathered by the team, additional information was sourced from other references, including site survey data and the campus plan. This data was subjected to extensive analysis by the team. LCA was utilized as one of the analytical methods during the analysis phase. The LCA facilitated the identification of sites with distinctive landscape characters, enabling their integration into the design. The results of the LCA were utilized to aid the designer in the following manner.”

Comments 4: The text submitted for review is clear and concise, but in my opinion, its layout is illogical. The analysis conducted before the project did not provide any guidance on how to design the area. A traditional field inventory and user needs assessment through interviews with land users would have been a much more valuable methodologically.

Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment. We respectfully clarify that this research presents a proposed method for assessing LCA.  This method complements and integrates existing methods rather than replacing them.  This is elucidated in the text added in lines 751-757, which states:

“This study does not offer a conclusive method for evaluating landscape character based exclusively on physical landscape elements such as landforms; instead, it introduces an adaptable approach that allows for the inclusion of supplementary physical components in the analysis. This method is one of several proposed approaches for evaluating landscape character.” 

Comments 5: I suggest changing the article's layout, title, and aim. I would retain the results of the LCA analysis (conducted and described correctly), but expand the section of the article describing the project. The article would focus primarily on the project. I would add information about other pre-design analyses that were performed. I would add visualizations of the planned areas.

Response 5: Thank you very much for the valuable revision suggestions. We respectfully clarify that this research aims mainly to propose a method for LCA as a tool to aid landscape architects in designing open spaces in large areas. Therefore, it focuses on the LCA itself and how it provides feedback in the design process. Another work in progress aims to describe the design of KKU’s campus landscape in detail, and these valuable revision suggestions will help in the development of this research work.

Comments 6: A well-conducted landscape assessment should be a component of many methods. The cartographic analysis process should conclude with a field verification, which checks for errors in the assessment while working at a computer. A GIS environment cannot do everything for us. The article should be enriched with the results of such analyses. It would be worthwhile to include information about the campus's characteristics, its history, and the competition for which the project was developed. It is also worth referencing the idea of "a University in a Park."

Response 6: We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment. We have added a new paragraph that define the method proposed in this article as one of many methods that may be helpful for landscape architects for LCA. This statement is in lines 751-755:

“This study does not offer a conclusive method for evaluating landscape character based exclusively on physical landscape elements such as landforms; instead, it introduces an adaptable approach that allows for the inclusion of supplementary physical components in the analysis. This method is one of several proposed approaches for evaluating landscape character.” 

For validation the result of GIS-based LCA, a field verification was conducted as mentioned in lines 418-425:

“To validate the GIS-based LCA results, the LCA map was compared with the actual landscape of the study area. One hundred sites were randomly selected in the study area, visited, investigated to identify their landscape elements, and the anticipated value of their landscape character computed according to equation 1 and defined using equation 2. The field observation-derived value of landscape character was subsequently compared with the value indicated on the LCA map. An accuracy metric was computed as the ratio of sites where the field observation-derived landscape character value matches with the GIS-derived value to the total number of sites visited.”

We have added a new paragraph to explain the idea of “a university in a park” in lines 437-446:

“This concept summarizes the fundamental vision of the landscape architecture design for the proposed KKU campus in Asir Province. This demonstrates an integrative approach in which the campus is designed to operate as an extension of the surrounding landscape, rather than simply being located within a natural setting. This approach employs GIS-based landscape character assessment to identify and preserve essential ecological and visual features, facilitating the designing of a campus that integrates with its surroundings. The concept advocates for improved access to green spaces, visual coherence with the surrounding landscape, and increased biodiversity, thereby converting the university into a dynamic park that fulfills both educational and ecological roles.”

Comments 7: The reader should have the opportunity to understand the spatial context of the study area. It is worthwhile to include photographic documentation presenting selected landscape components along with their assigned ratings. A valuable element of the work would be the presentation of photographic documentation of selected locations classified as different landscape types and rated using the proposed scale (1-3). These photos would help understand the authors' intentions when creating the rating scale and why, for example, "Flat or uniform regions exert minimal influence on landscape perception" (472). Is this really the case? If such an area offers a viewing perspective for an attractive, multi-faceted view, it can be very valuable, even more so than terrain with mountain relief.

Response 7: Thank you for your valuable comment. To address the issue of giving the reader the sense of the spatial context, we added a set of four pictures as photographic documentation in the study area with explanation to highlight the landscape diversity and components in the area. Figure 2 presents this photographic documentation.

Comments 8: Figure 1. Add markings on the map for geographical elements essential to the design process – important geographical names, arrows on roads indicating the direction a road leads to, names of important green areas, etc.

Response 8: Thank you very much for your careful review and the comments provided. In accordance with your suggestions, we have updated the Figure 1 with important geographical names, arrows on roads indicating the direction a road leads to, names of important green areas, and main urban settlements, add we have included two location maps to show the study area in its regional and national context.

Comments 9: Figures 1, 3, 4, 5, 7. Mark the boundaries of the design area, and add a map showing the location of the analysed area within the country/region.

Response 9: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have carefully revised Figures 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 by adding the boundaries of design area. A location maps of the study area in the regional and national context were added in Figure 1. These changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript to enhance the overall presentation quality. Figures 3,4,5, and 7 in the revised manuscript are Figures 4,5,6, and 8 respectively.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Your precise evaluation of this paper, "GIS-Based Landscape Character Assessment as a Tool for Landscape Architecture Design: A Case Study from Saudi Arabia," is greatly appreciated.  Your careful evaluation and insightful feedback are of tremendous educational value in enhancing the quality of this paper. Additionally, they will serve as a profound source of motivation for us to persist in our comprehensive research on landscape character assessment. We have carefully reviewed and discussed the reviewers' comments, and we have responded to and revised them individually. The parts that have been clarified or corrected have been annotated in red font for your convenience. The revision note is attached to the paper; please review it.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: “In "2.7. Mapping and Evaluating Landscape Characters," the weights of LU/LC, Landform, and Channel are the most significant, but there is a lack of supporting citations.”

Response 1: Thank you for highlighting this issue. We have added supporting citations [59-62] to the statement in Lines 326-338 to clarify that this perspective is grounded in established literature. The revised text now reads:

"Several research investigations have highlighted the significance of various variables in landscape characterization. The mountainous terrain and semi-arid climate of the area necessitated the selection of three factors to characterize its landscape that are land cover and land use, landforms, and drainage patterns. Besides their aesthetic value, these elements contribute to the landscape in various other capacities. Land use and land cover are critical for ethical stewardship and effective management of natural resources [59] and significantly contribute to addressing various issues, such as microclimate modification and facilitating spatially explicit integration [60]. Topographic factors significantly influence environmental conditions, including the distribution of radiation temperature through factors such as elevation, slope, aspect, and surface curvature. These elements al-so affect climate, water flow, soil formation, and patterns of species distribution [61]. The surface water and drainage system can significantly impact landscape character by altering land use, which in turn affects agricultural productivity and biodiversity [62]."

We appreciate your suggestion to further emphasize weights issue. In accordance with your suggestions, we have added a statement to introduce the weighing process. This statement added to lines 342-344 as: "The weights were allocated to the components of the three variables, derived from deliberations on their influence in constructing the landscape."

We also respectfully clarify that the weighting of the elements was clearly articulated in the discussion of three key sections:

Lines 348-364

“Natural vegetation enhances the aesthetic quality, biodiversity, and ecological integrity of the environment. It influences the region's natural characteristics and provides habitats for fauna. Rock formations affect the geomorphological characteristics and visual uniqueness. They enhance the cultural and geological individuality of the landscape. Natural vegetation and rocky land were considered highly significant for the landscape's character, receiving a weighted score of 3. Domestic vegetation managed in built environments embodies cultural practices and human engagement with the landscape, shaping the feeling of place and aesthetic value. The built-up areas delineate the cultural and functional attributes of the terrain. They influence visual perception, and social dynamics yet may diminish natural beauty. Consequently, domestic vegetation and built-up environments were deemed significant and assigned a weighted score of 2. Although undeveloped lands offer open space, they are frequently transitory and lack distinguishing character. Its importance is contingent upon the contextual environment and the possibility of future alterations. Roads paved with asphalt affect accessibility, connectivity, and landscape fragmentation. They influence movement patterns and visual coherence. Undeveloped land and roads paved with asphalt were deemed the least significant for landscape character, assigned a weighted score of 1.”

Lines 368-381:

“Ridges and summits are significant elements that shape the skyline, affect viewsheds, and establish a sense of enclosure or openness. They frequently serve as landmarks that influence the overall spatial configuration of the landscape. Valleys shape drainage patterns, impact vegetation corridors, and are often associated with human settlement and agricultural activities. They enhance the visual depth and dynamism of a landscape. Slopes affect water runoff, erosion patterns, and the suitability of land use. They influence visibility and accessibility, thereby shaping the perception of landscape scale and form. Consequently, ridges, summits, valleys, and slopes were deemed the most significant and assigned a weight of 3. Spurs and shoulders serve as transitional forms that enhance the complexity of landform patterns and affect local microclimates and drainage systems. They contribute to the visual diversity of the landscape. Foot-slopes are located at the base of slopes and play a crucial role in drainage and sediment deposition, which in turn influences soil fertility and the distribution of vegetation. These landforms were deemed moderately important and assigned a value of 2. Flats, while less visually prominent, play a crucial role in land use, particularly in agriculture and infrastructure development. Depressions and hollows, as localized features, influence hydrology by functioning as water catchments or wetland areas. They affect biodiversity but have a minimal contribution to the overall landscape character. These landforms are the least significant and were assigned a value of 1.”

And lines 390-401:

“In the context of this analysis, the channel and a 250 m buffer area around it will be regarded as one whole. Fourth-order channels are the most visually and culturally significant features in the landscape. Their significant impact on landscape structure, cultural identity, and ecological services necessitates the utmost consideration, reflected in a high weighted value that was given for these orders, which is 3. Third-order channels substantially affect landscape character and perception. Their structural and visual preeminence, along with ecological and cultural significance, shows a moderate importance with a weighted value. 2. The channels of the second and first orders are many and diminutive, showing localized impact with restricted visual prominence and cultural importance. Consequently, the channels of the second and first orders, with all remaining areas, were deemed the least significant and assigned a weighted value of 1.”

Comments 2: It is recommended to use the AHP to determine the weights, thereby enhancing credibility.

Response 2: We We respectfully clarify that the APH method is intended to be employed in the development of the approach introduced in this paper in a future work. This is in accordance with the conclusion in lines 725-727, which states:

"Future studies might use a mechanism, such as the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), to quantify the varying importance of variables in characterizing landscapes."

Comments 3: Moreover, due to the unscientific setting of weights, the total areas of the three importance-level study regions differ significantly (low: 6.5%, medium: 73.5%, high: 20%), which does not meet the classification requirements.

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer for this valuable and insightful comment. It is essential to clearly articulate the validation process and interpret the results. In response to this suggestion, we revised the manuscript by incorporating a new paragraph in the methodology to detail the validation process following lines 418-428.

“To validate the GIS-based LCA results, the LCA map was compared with the actual landscape of the study area. One hundred sites were randomly selected in the study area, visited, investigated to identify their landscape elements, and the anticipated value of their landscape character computed according to equation 1 and defined using equation 2. The field observation-derived value of landscape character was subsequently compared with the value indicated on the LCA map. An accuracy metric was computed as the ratio of sites where the field observation-derived landscape character value matches with the GIS-derived value to the total number of sites visited. This measure is shown in the following equation:

Accuracy = n_v/n_t x 100%,          (3)

Where n_v is the number of sites where the field observation-derived landscape char-acter matched that in the LCA map, and n_t is the total number of sites visited.”

Text was also added following lines 707-714 to provide an explanation of the numerical results:

“The landscape character is considered a natural phenomenon. This assumption indicates that any quantization method for the landscape character will yield measures that are statistically normally distributed. Consequently, the regions exhibiting the most and least significant GIS-based landscape character value are anticipated to be restricted. Conversely, the mountainous landscape is diverse, resulting in the classification of 20% of the total study area as possessing the most significant landscape character. Furthermore, the area categorized as having an intermediate significant character comprises over 73% of the total area, while the least significant character is confined to 6.5% of the area.”

Comments 4: Although the author emphasizes the importance of visual or perceptual quality, the data lacks a humanistic perspective, and it is recommended to extract visual elements from photos collected during field surveys.

Response 4: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. In response, we have added a set of photos that introduce the landscape diversity in the study area. The added photos are shown in Figure 2.

Comments 5: In 3.5, the causal relationship between the design scheme and previous research findings needs to be explained.

Response 5: We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out this important oversight. To address this, we have significantly revised Section “3.5. KUU Landscape Master Plan”. These revisions now clarify the methodological lineage the relationship between the design concept and the landscape character assessment map and explicitly highlighted in the figure 10.

The added explanation in lines 577-623 states:

“The design process underwent multiple phases. Initially, the team gathered the required data to comprehend the nature of the site. The team conducted a site visit, investigated the site, and interviewed stockholders to collect this data. Alongside the data gathered by the team, additional information was sourced from other references, including site survey data and the campus plan. This data was subjected to extensive analysis by the team. LCA was utilized as one of the analytical methods during the analysis phase. The LCA facilitated the identification of sites with distinctive landscape characters, enabling their integration into the design.  The results of the LCA were utilized to aid the designer in the following manner.

The LCA map, shown in Figure 8, represents the site area’s character importance levels, ranging in color from the least value presented in red to the high value in green. In the light of mat-ecologies theory, the design decisions regarding the masterplan's seven zones, highlighted in Figures 10 and 11, respond to the high-importance LCA zones as follows:

·         Zone 01: It comprises a central plaza, event space, and food and beverage buildings and creates a vibrant social and cultural hub for the wide university campus. It was intentionally designed in a flat terrain with high visibility from the surrounding landscape. This area allows for flexible open space, accessibility, and visual connection to the rocky backdrop.  In the central plaza, a retention water pond is integrated along the natural water collection corridor, in alignment with the hydrological setting map, which acts as an aesthetic and sustainable drainage feature.

·         Zone 02: The camping site is located on a mountainous topography in the high landscape character value zone that features steep landforms and dense vegetation. This increases privacy for the camping units and maintains their natural setting and intriguing landscape features.

·         Zone 03: The orchard park is strategically situated in the rocky landscape zone, identified as a high-value area according to the LCA results map. This setting is distinguished by a rugged formation, scattered native vegetation, and visual drama, making the park a place to relax, exercise, and socialize.

·         Zone 04: This zone comprises the botanical garden and the library plaza and resembles Zone 01 in terms of the flat terrain setting and the high visibility from surrounding buildings and hills. It is easily accessed from surrounding buildings and the main pedestrian route.

·         Zone 05: According to the LCA, this mountainous zone achieves a high level of im-portance due to its physical dominance, landmark quality, and visual connectivity across the wide landscape. It sits at the main gateway to the campus, featuring a welcoming landscape and strong identity. Hence, it was occupied by the observation platform that can provide an expansive 360° panoramic view of the campus and the surrounding landscape.

·         Zone 06: In accordance with the LCA results, the investment zone is recognized as an area with a high level of landscape importance and accommodates the investment architecture of commerce, offices, and hotels. It occupies a flat terrain that is suitable for construction and is integrated with the nearby rocky hill.”

Comments 6: It is recommended to add formulas and models where necessary.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your careful review and the comments provided. In accordance with your suggestions, we have added two mathematical equations to express the calculation of landscape character weight and classification. Details of the revisions are as follows and can be found in the original manuscript.

WLC = (WLF+WLU+WD)/3,        (1)

Where the weight of landscape character (W_LC) is calculated as the average of the weight of landform (W_LF), the weight of land use and land cover (W_LU), and the weight of the drainage system (W_D).

And

,             (2)

And

Accuracy = n_v/n_t x 100%,                        (3)

Comments 7: This study provides quantitative data support for landscape architecture design and is a credible empirical research, but it is necessary to strengthen the correlation between the conclusions and the cases.

Response 7: Thank you for your valuable comment. The results of the GIS-based landscape character assessment were verified by comparing the results of the LCA map with ground truth data. The details of the validation process are presented in detail in lines 418-428.

Comments 8: Currently, LCA research is common, but there are few studies that have been translated into practical designs, which have guiding significance.

Response 8: We respectfully wish to clarify that the literature review encompassed various studies on landscape character assessment, as well as studies that are indirectly related to the topic.  The revised version incorporated further research to substantiate the topic of this study, as noted in the response to Comment 1.

Comments 9: Due to data limitations, the author's LCA only includes three elements and does not cover most of the variables in previous studies. Therefore, it is recommended to add data types and variables, and provide detailed explanations of methods and formulas. If this suggestion is accepted, the author may need to make moderate revisions to the paper.

Response 9: We appreciate your comment; however, we must emphasize that we have thoroughly examined the rationale for selecting the three elements to evaluate the landscape character of the study area, substantiating our discussion with pertinent references, as demonstrated in our response to Comment 1, and the equations utilized were outlined in our response to Comment 6.

Comments 10: The font size of the images in the paper is too small, especially Figures 8-10. Figures 8 and 9 suggest adding legends.

Response 10: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding figures presentation. We have updated the mentioned figures to fix the font size problem and enhance the presentation. Figures 8,9 and 10, in the revised manuscript are the figures 9, 10, and 11.