A Systematic Approach of Optimal Land-Use Planning by Applying Geo-Environmental Techniques: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a valid case study of the use of ground penetrating radar, seismic refraction, and geoelectrical resistivity sounding to determine suitability for urban expansion. 

The methods appeared to be OK, using GPR, refracting, and geoelectricity. The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and authors address the main question posed. But it is difficult to tell whether this paper addresses a one-off situation about suitability for urban expansion or whether the methods applied can be transferred to other urban expansion situations. The references appropriate.

The article needs a literature review of where and how these techniques have been used for evaluating urban development suitability.

The article needs copy-editing. 

Author Response

Manuscript ID: applsci-2071366

A Systematic Approach of Optimal Land-Use Planning by Applying Geo-Environmental Techniques: A Case Study

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments:

 

This is a valid case study of the use of ground penetrating radar, seismic refraction, and geoelectrical resistivity sounding to determine suitability for urban expansion.

The methods appeared to be OK, using GPR, refracting, and geoelectricity. The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and authors address the main question posed. But it is difficult to tell whether this paper addresses a one-off situation about suitability for urban expansion or whether the methods applied can be transferred to other urban expansion situations. The references appropriate.

• The article needs a literature review of where and how these techniques have been used for evaluating urban development suitability.
• The article needs copy-editing.

 

Point 1: The article needs a literature review of where and how these techniques have been used for evaluating urban development suitability:

Response 1: Done (lines 72-78).

 

Point 2: The article needs copy-editing.

Response 2: Done.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The introduction is too simple, the author need to give more information about international review.

2. The paper gives a "local" story, the author should give the research significance of the paper.

 

3. The research content needs to be further enriched, and the current overall design is relatively simple. Figure 5 should be improved.

 

Author Response

Manuscript ID: applsci-2071366

A Systematic Approach of Optimal Land-Use Planning by Applying Geo-Environmental Techniques: A Case Study

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments:

 

Point 1: The introduction is too simple, the author need to give more information about international review.

Response 1: Done (lines 72-78).

 

Point 2: The paper gives a "local" story, the author should give the research significance of the paper.

Response 2: Done (lines 72-78).

 

Point 3: The research content needs to be further enriched, and the current overall design is relatively simple. Figure 5 should be improved.

Response 3: Done.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This Article demonstrates the capabilities and integrity of the environmental geological and geophysical techniques for planning the suitability of the extension of Helwan city for construction and engineering purposes. The geological and topographical mapping were utilized as well as  environmental geophysical techniques (seismic refraction, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and resistivity soundings) for optimal land-use planning. The article is informative and logically clear, but there are still some problems. Detailed comments are as follows.

1.The Introduction section lacks relevant research background and we suggest expanding it further to give your work a wider relevance. In addition, the Introduction does not cover the relevant literature and does not provide critical insights from the existing scholarship (i.e. you are only reporting on 'who did what') and therefore your writing style fails to highlight the novelty of your research. It is recommended that the research review of the article be developed further.

2. The authors should further refine their findings and innovations in the discussion section and summarize them based on citations of previous studies.

3. In the Conclusion section, you miss the corresponding conclusions that could highlight the key novelty of your findings and its impact on optimal land use planning.

4. Expand and strengthen the use of literature. As requested by the journal editors, the current references lack the DOI.

5. The manuscript requires English polishing. You need to conduct a thorough edit, addressing technical errors of grammar and wording as well as general readability and style.

These issues may need to be clarified prior to publication.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Manuscript ID: applsci-2071366

A Systematic Approach of Optimal Land-Use Planning by Applying Geo-Environmental Techniques: A Case Study

 

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments:

This Article demonstrates the capabilities and integrity of the environmental geological and geophysical techniques for planning the suitability of the extension of Helwan city for construction and engineering purposes. The geological and topographical mapping were utilized as well as environmental geophysical techniques (seismic refraction, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and resistivity soundings) for optimal land-use planning. The article is informative and logically clear, but there are still some problems. Detailed comments are as follows.

 

Point 1: The Introduction section lacks relevant research background and we suggest expanding it further to give your work a wider relevance. In addition, the Introduction does not cover the relevant literature and does not provide critical insights from the existing scholarship (i.e. you are only reporting on 'who did what') and therefore your writing style fails to highlight the novelty of your research. It is recommended that the research review of the article be developed further.

Response 1: Done (lines 72-78).

 

Point 2: The authors should further refine their findings and innovations in the discussion section and summarize them based on citations of previous studies.

Response 2: Done (lines 272-273).

 

Point 3: In the Conclusion section, you miss the corresponding conclusions that could highlight the key novelty of your findings and its impact on optimal land use planning.

Response 3: Done (lines 312-314).

 

Point 4: Expand and strengthen the use of literature. As requested by the journal editors, the current references lack the DOI.

Response 4: Done (lines 345-365).

 

Point 5: The manuscript requires English polishing. You need to conduct a thorough edit, addressing technical errors of grammar and wording as well as general readability and style.

Response 5: Done.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The addition of the literature review is an important addition, but it is brief.  In the Conclusion, the connection of this case study to the larger field of land suitability for development needs to be made.

The manuscript needs more editing. For instance, the initial paragraph of the Introduction is a long run-on sentence.

Words are not used appropriately in some cases, such as in the Abstract (The integrated results of the environmental geological and geophysical survey revealed out two major distinctive subsurface layers: thin surface layer which corresponds to highly weathered limestone, with a thickness averaged by 3 m; a bottom layer that equivalent to the bedrock which composed of hard limestone. Also, the GPR performs two remarkable layers supported the generated model of other geophysical surveying.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: applsci-2071366

A Systematic Approach of Optimal Land-Use Planning by Applying Geo-Environmental Techniques: A Case Study

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments (Round 2):

 

The addition of the literature review is an important addition, but it is brief.  In the Conclusion, the connection of this case study to the larger field of land suitability for development needs to be made.

The manuscript needs more editing. For instance, the initial paragraph of the Introduction is a long run-on sentence.

Words are not used appropriately in some cases, such as in the Abstract (The integrated results of the environmental geological and geophysical survey revealed out two major distinctive subsurface layers: thin surface layer which corresponds to highly weathered limestone, with a thickness averaged by 3 m; a bottom layer that equivalent to the bedrock which composed of hard limestone. Also, the GPR performs two remarkable layers supported the generated model of other geophysical surveying.

 

Point 1: The addition of the literature review is an important addition, but it is brief:

Response 1: Done (lines 74-81).

 

Point 2: In the Conclusion, the connection of this case study to the larger field of land suitability for development needs to be made.

Response 2: Done (lines 342-348).

 

Point 3: The manuscript needs more editing. For instance, the initial paragraph of the Introduction is a long run-on sentence.

Response 3: Done.

 

Point 4: Words are not used appropriately in some cases, such as in the Abstract (The integrated results of the environmental geological and geophysical survey revealed out two major distinctive subsurface layers: thin surface layer which corresponds to highly weathered limestone, with a thickness averaged by 3 m; a bottom layer that equivalent to the bedrock which composed of hard limestone. Also, the GPR performs two remarkable layers supported the generated model of other geophysical surveying.

Response 4: Done.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf