Navigating the Pandemic with GIS: An Exploratory Factor Analysis of Israel’s Municipal Response

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of Navigating the Pandemic with GIS: Multivariate Evidence from Israel’s Municipal Response

The authors present the results of a survey and statistical analysis of a questionnaire sent to municipalities assessing their use/reliance on GIS as a response to the coronavirus pandemic. This research presents a retrospective view on how GIS and associated tools were leveraged by municipalities across Israel. Their findings suggest that those municipalities that included GIS as part of their decision-making processes and policy implementations benefitted while those municipalities that did not include GIS saw diminished outcomes. My comments are presented in two sections: main concerns and minor points. 

Main Concerns

The authors' literature review of GIS comes across as rather haphazardly organized and presented. In some places, there is a historical thread, while in other parts, the discussion focuses on GIS topical applications and spatial techniques. The authors should develop an overall organizing structure to present the literature in a more logical fashion. Then, once that structure is determined, include section headers to help the reader better understand this literature and its presentation organization. As a suggestion, it would seem logical if the authors would highlight more how GIS has been used in a public health setting. I think readers of this journal already have a good background on the historical developments of GIS and this section could be deleted in favor of a more focused review of public health-related GIS usage/application/methods/etc. Doing so would help frame the focus of the present research.

I was surprised that there was no inclusion of literature extolling the benefits of using CATPCA to assess the survey data. While the use and awareness of CATPCA may be growing, the general readership of this journal is likely not that familiar with this technique. Additional explanation of the jargon should be added to make the article more accessible to a wider readership. In addition, there was no literature covering the role of questionnaires/surveys as a form of data collection. Both of bodies of literature should be examined and reported on in this literature review as they are elemental in the methodology section.

While I did not expect to see the entire questionnaire included in the article, it is important to provide an external link to the questionnaire that would enable the interested reader in viewing it.

Since the authors didn’t include the survey instrument, there needs to be more description about its organization and content. The description provided by the authors presented a rather surficial overview of the questionnaire's structure. Instead, the reader needs to examine the questionnaire, its specific questions, how it was formatted, etc. For example, how many individual questions were contained within each of the four sections? Which sections/questions included the Likert-scale items, binary questions, and open-ended response options? Were these types of questions equally divided among the four sections? This discussion needs further elaboration to help the reader better understand the specific kinds of questions that were asked in each section and link those questions to the discussion of the results that follows.

The authors should provide an overview of descriptive information about the municipalities that were involved in this study and mentioned in the results section. Characterize these municipalities with respect to their population size, geographic location, form of administration, etc. How were these municipalities selected (are the 103 municipalities inclusive of all possible municipalities in Israel?).

Continuing with the results section, the authors describe the authorities as having a diverse range (a diverse range of what exactly?). Yet, the only insights provided in the results section were directly related to the GIS aspect of these municipalities (usage, number of GIS personnel, etc.). Thus, the authors are therefore asserting that all the municipalities are homogenous with respect to external factors and characteristics that define the municipalities, which is likely not the case and counters against their "diverse range" statement.

I found the discussion of the percentage values associated with section 3.2 to be lacking in organization and difficult to follow. For instance, it wasn’t clear to me whether the results presented starting at line 278 forward were only related to those municipalities that did not use GIS. The authors need to better link the discussion of the results with the overall organization of the questionnaire that was presented in section 3.1.  

As with my previous point, the presentation of the results section (4.1) needs better organization. It isn’t clear to this reader why the specific criteria are presented in the order that they are. Where specifically did these criteria originate from the questionnaire? Are all of the criteria discussed in section 4.1 inclusive of all questions posed in the questionnaire? I don’t know.

A concern I have with much of the data reporting in this article. The authors either report percentages as numbers in prose or by using expansive tables of data. The comparative differences in the percentages discussed in section 4.1 could be communicated better to the reader if those numeric values were visualized through graphical means.

The expansive tables are another part of the results presentation that could be visualized and presented in a more intuitive manner. Again, I am assuming that the short descriptions presented in, for example, Table 1 relate in some fashion to the questions that were posed in the questionnaire. However, I am not certain.

It isn’t clear to this reader whether the CATPCA examined all responses from the questionnaire or only those from the Likert-scale responses. This clarification is needed at the start of section 4.2.

Throughout much of section 4.2’s discussion, especially Table 3, this reader found it challenging to get an overall sense of the results. Part of this difficulty stems from the overuse of tables when presenting the data could be enhanced using graphic visualizations. This is especially relevant for Tables 3 and 6 as organizing the “Case Number” data is rather meaningless in the context of the associated discussion. A better approach would be to reduce the complexity of the data (e.g., through some data reduction method) and visualize the results. Otherwise, the tables are not necessarily providing meaningful information that the reader can generalize.

Minor Points

Line 115 – a word is missing “GIS) order” should be “GIS) in order”

Line 148 – the authors should establish for the reader when the survey was administered and the percent completion. Did all municipalities complete all parts of the survey instrument? It appears as if all the municipalities that were sent the questionnaire completed it. How did the research team ensure that the response rate was 100%? That is a remarkable achievement in qualitative survey research.

Line 181/182 – The authors need to better explain what they mean by a “latent structure through optimal scaling transformations.” In fact, I echo this same general statement throughout the discussion of the CATPCA method as there is much jargon being used. Realize that many of the readers are not well-versed in CATPCA, so the jargon isn’t necessarily meaningful to a wider audience. Translate that jargon into more meaningful and relatable associations to this study's aims. 

Line 183/184 – As with my former point, the general readership is not necessarily knowledgeable as to what a “spline ordinal transformation with two interior knots” does, how does it operate, or why it is used here. My same comment applies to the “one-dimensional configuration based on variable principal normalization.” Be sensitive to the readership's knowledge of these statistical methods and provide an relatable explanation.

The next few paragraphs beginning with line 186 – I have the same comment about the use of statistical jargon and the diminished understanding by the reader.

Line 193 – this paragraph starts with the “second analytical step” yet the first analytical step was never specifically enumerated.

Line 204 – I am not clear on what GIS User Typologies and Non- GIS User Typologies are and why these phrases are capitalized.

Lines 254/255 and 264/265 – the authors need to be more consistent with their wording when describing the numeric values obtained from the results. For instance, in lines 254/255 and 264/265, the reported values essentially divide the data into thirds. Yet, in lines 254/255, the authors describe this division as “actively used” while the “use varied” appears in lines 264/265. Since both results essentially divide the data into thirds, the same connotation should be applied to describe the findings.

Line 191 – where did the |0.70| value come from (provide a citation as to the merits of using this value in the study). 

Line 299 – the phrase “GIS systems” is redundant

Line 213 – it still isn’t clear to this reader what the “latent structure” means in this context. Again, consider the potential readership and their knowledge of this statistical technique.

Line 332 – the use of VAF isn’t defined in the proceeding discussion but should be.

Lines 315-318 – much of this discussion is not well explained in relation to the results.

Line 330 – does λ = the absolute threshold of the component loadings |0.70| that was mentioned in line 191? The descriptive term used in lines 329/330 is different than in line 191. Why not include λ in line 191? Then, in line 347, is defined as “CATPCA loadings.” There should be a more consistent definition of λ throughout the article.  

Table 1 – there may be some print resolution issues with the PDF that I viewed, but it appears that the short description of “GIS for support to SOVID-19 patients” in Table 1 is highlighted in bold. If so, is there a meaning to this bold highlight? This same concern is also evident in Table 2

Line 392 – as with my earlier comment, who says that |0.70| is conventional? Conventional in what respect?

Table 2 – I suggest a better formatting approach in reporting the CI ranges. At present, two rows are used to report each CI range. It took a while for this reader to fully understand that the “-“ was a negative rather than a hyphen as the hyphen always appeared on the first line rather than the second line where it would make more sense to the reader.

Line 549 – the authors report the “second stage” but do not enumerate a “first stage.” While the first stage may be inferred, it should be articulated and enumerated.

Table 7 – its contents are really difficult to read with the center alignment stretch across each cell formatting option.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

We wish to sincerely thank the reviewer for their thorough, insightful, and highly constructive feedback on our manuscript. We agree with the points raised and have undertaken a comprehensive revision that has fundamentally improved the quality, clarity, and analytical depth of our paper. The reviewer’s feedback, particularly the call for a clearer and more organized presentation of the results, inspired us to re-evaluate our initial analytical approach.

As a result, the manuscript has been rewritten from its core to address every concern. Most importantly, we have replaced our original single-dimension Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CATPCA) with an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). This new approach provides a more intuitive and interpretable multi-dimensional structure of GIS usage, which we believe is a significant improvement in the paper's clarity and directly addresses the core of your feedback.

Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each of the comments.

Response to Main Concerns

1. On the Organization and Content of the Literature Review

• Reviewer's Comments: The literature review was haphazardly organized, lacked a clear structure, and did not include literature justifying the use of surveys or the statistical method (CATPCA).
• Our Response: Thank you for this crucial feedback. We agree completely. The literature review has been entirely restructured into a focused, three-part argument with a clear introduction and thematic subsections (2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). As suggested, the historical overview has been removed, and the review now focuses squarely on the use of GIS in public health. Furthermore, we have added a new subsection, Section 2.3: Methodological Frameworks, which now provides a literature-based justification for both the use of structured surveys in public administration research and for our new, more intuitive Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) approach.

2. On the Description of the Survey Instrument

• Reviewer's Comments: The original description of the survey was superficial and lacked detail about its structure, the number and type of questions in each section, and how the questions link to the results.
• Our Response: To address all eight of your points on this matter, we have completely rewritten and significantly expanded Section 3.1, "Data Collection and Survey Instrument." This section now provides a comprehensive description of the survey’s branching logic, the exact number of questions in each subsection for both the GIS-user and non-GIS-user paths, and includes specific examples of questions and their response options. Furthermore, we have now included the full questionnaire in Appendix A for complete transparency.

3. On the Description and Selection of Municipalities

• Reviewer's Comments: The manuscript needed to provide descriptive information about the municipalities (population, location, etc.) and clarify how they were selected. The claim of a "diverse range" was unsubstantiated.
• Our Response: We agree that this context was missing and was a significant weakness. In Section 3.1, we now clarify that the survey was distributed to all 240 municipalities in Israel, and our sample of 130 represents a voluntary response sample with a 54.2% response rate. Most importantly, we have added a new subsection, 4.1.1. Demographic Characteristics of Responding Municipalities, which provides a detailed characterization of the sample by geographic district, administrative form, and population size, empirically supporting our claim of diversity. A full list is also provided in Appendix B.

4. On the Organization and Clarity of the Results Section

• Reviewer's Comments: The descriptive results (originally Section 4.1) were disorganized, difficult to follow, and it was unclear which data pertained to which group.
• Our Response: The descriptive statistics in Section 4.1.2 have been completely restructured. The old, confusing paragraphs of percentages have been removed. The new section now presents the descriptive results with clear subheadings for each group and a comparative summary table (Table 1) that presents the mean scores side-by-side, directly linking the findings to the specific questions in the appendix.

5. On the Presentation of Multivariate Results and the Exclusive Focus on GIS Users

• Reviewer's Comments: The original CATPCA results were presented in large, confusing tables that were difficult to interpret. The results would be better communicated with summaries and graphical visualizations.
• Our Response: This was excellent advice that directly led to our decision to re-analyze the data. Our new Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) revealed a much clearer, three-dimensional structure. This new structure is now the core of Section 4.2.
• As you suggested, the detailed statistical tables from the analysis (Tables C1, C2, and C3) have been moved to a new Appendix C.
• In the main text, these tables have been replaced with clear, concise summary paragraphs that explain the main findings and the three new dimensions of GIS usage.
• We have also added a clear justification at the end of Section 3.1 explaining why the EFA was performed exclusively on the GIS-user group, noting that this decision was driven by the primary research aim, methodological suitability, and the need for statistical robustness.

 

 

Response to Minor Points

We have also diligently addressed all of the minor points raised:

• The missing word ("in order") has been corrected.
• The survey administration dates (January-February 2022) and the response rate (54.2%) have been added to Section 3.1.
• The statistical jargon in the methodology section has been explained in simple, accessible language.
• The analytical steps are now clearly enumerated in the methodology.
• The term "GIS User Typologies" has been replaced with the clearer "GIS-user group" throughout the manuscript.
• All issues with wording, inconsistent definitions (λ, VAF), and redundant phrases have been corrected.
• All tables have been reformatted for clarity and consistency, including fixing the alignment and the presentation of negative numbers in confidence intervals.

We are very grateful for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We are confident that the decision to adopt the EFA, inspired by your feedback, has resulted in a significantly stronger, clearer, and more intuitive paper.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides compelling multivariate evidence that GIS significantly strengthens municipal decision-making processes during public health crises, e.g. the COVID-19 pandemic.   The research was well designed, and the paper was well-written. However, my main concern is whether the topic of the research fits the scope of the ISPRS IJGI. It is a questionnaire-based statistical study that assesses whether GIS is a useful tool in managing a pandemic crisis. Although it is about GIS, it is not about GIS science, technology and application themselves.  The paper is more suited for a journal in applied statistics.  This is just my personal feel and opinion. If the editor feels it is suited for IJGI, I am ok with accepting it for publication with some minor revisions.

 

Minor issues:

1. The research design does not differentiate the application of GIS in public health at different levels of GIS functions: from basic GIS data input, database management, mapping and visualization, to advanced spatial analysis, modeling, and geospatial intelligence. The questionnaire should have asked a question of what GIS functions are used.  If GIS is just used for basic mapping without any spatial pattern and trend analysis and future prediction capabilities, I doubt it is very useful.
2. Lines 58-60 what does “authority identification” mean in “GIS usage status and local authority identification”?   
3. Line 330:  “loadings (λ ≥ |0.70|)” -à  “loadings (|λ| ≥ 70)”. The variable that changes is λ, not the threshold value. Put the absolute value vertical bars around the number does not make sense.
4. line 34: “geospatial intelligence supported both tactical crisis response and broader 345 strategic functions”. Again, in your research design and questionnaire, you never asked about what GIS functions (including advanced AI- based geospatial analysis) are used, how come that you have the conclusion that geospatial intelligence has the supporting capability?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive assessment of our research design and writing. We are very grateful for the encouraging feedback and for the thoughtful comments, which will help us improve the manuscript.

We will address the main concern regarding the journal's scope first, followed by each of the minor points.

Response to Main Concern: Fit with the Scope of ISPRS IJGI

• Reviewer's Comment: The reviewer's main concern is whether the paper, as a questionnaire-based statistical study, fits the scope of a GIS science journal, suggesting it might be more suited for a journal in applied statistics.
• Our Response: Thank you for raising this important point. We have carefully considered this, and we respectfully wish to make the case for our paper's strong fit with IJGI's focus on GIS applications. While our method is statistical, our research question and contribution are fundamentally about GIS. Many studies document that GIS was used during the pandemic, or provide case studies of specific tasks. Our paper, however, moves beyond this to ask a novel question: What is the underlying structure of municipal GIS application in a real-world crisis? To answer this, we have now employed an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). This new analysis does not just count GIS tasks; it provides a data-driven, empirical model of how GIS was operationalized. Our finding that GIS usage is not a single activity but is composed of three distinct dimensions (Strategic & Operational Integration, Temporal Engagement, and Logistical Site Coordination) is, we believe, a significant and novel contribution to the literature on GIS application in crisis management. It provides a new framework for understanding, training, and implementing GIS in public health emergencies. We therefore believe this work is of direct interest to the GIS application community and is a strong fit for IJGI.

 

 

Response to Minor Issues

1. On Differentiating Levels of GIS Functions

• Reviewer's Comment: The research did not differentiate between basic and advanced GIS functions (e.g., mapping vs. spatial analysis).
• Our Response: This is an excellent point and a valid observation. We acknowledge this as a limitation of the current study and a valuable direction for future research. Our primary aim was not to inventory specific technical functions but to identify the broader, latent dimensions of how GIS was operationalized as a whole by municipalities. Our new EFA is perfectly suited for this goal, as it identifies these strategic patterns of use from the ground up, based on the activities the municipalities themselves reported. We have now clarified this focus in our revised manuscript.

2. On the Meaning of "Authority Identification"

• Reviewer's Comment: The meaning of "authority identification" was unclear.
• Our Response: Thank you for pointing out this lack of clarity. This phrase referred to the final open-ended question in the survey that asked respondents to name their municipality. We have removed this confusing jargon and have clarified the description in Section 3.1 of the revised manuscript.

3. On the Notation for Component Loadings

• Reviewer's Comment: The notation "loadings (λ ≥ |0.70|)" was incorrect.
• Our Response: Thank you for catching this error. You are absolutely correct. The notation has been corrected to the standard "|λ| ≥ 0.70" throughout the revised manuscript.

4. On the Use of the Term "Geospatial Intelligence"

• Reviewer's Comment: The conclusion about "geospatial intelligence" was not supported, as the study did not ask about advanced AI-based geospatial analysis.
• Our Response: This is a fair and accurate criticism. We agree that the term "geospatial intelligence" was an overstatement given the scope of our data. We have revised the manuscript to remove this term and have replaced it with more precise language, such as "geospatial data" and "data-driven insights," to accurately reflect what our study measured.

We are confident that these revisions, especially the new focus on the multi-dimensional structure of GIS application, have made this a stronger and more suitable paper for ISPRS IJGI. We thank you again for your valuable guidance.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Comments:

This study examined the role of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in municipal responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel, using a structured survey, Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CATPCA), and bootstrap validation methods. Please check for repeated use of full terms after introducing acronyms (e.g., GIS) and correct any citation typo errors. The main revision comments are listed below:

1. Introduction

Lines 37-38: “Various models have been developed to predict and control COVID-19 transmission using artificial intelligence.”. Citations are needed to support this statement. Please provide more details about the models mentioned. Are these models related to the methods used in your study?

2. Literature Review

Line 66: The acronym "GIS" is repeated unnecessarily. The same issue appears in other sections as well.

Lines 72-75: GIS is also capable of performing spatial statistical analyses, modeling, and more. It is not necessary to list detailed functionalities in that section, as GIS offers far more capabilities than those mentioned.

Lines 104-105: “Various research examined aspects of the usage of GIS during the Covid-19 pandemic.”. Citations are needed to support this point.

Lines 105-127: Additionally, the papers mentioned after the statement only indicate that GIS was used but do not explain how it was applied during the COVID-19 pandemic. More detail and improved content flow are needed.

Overall, the literature review focuses too heavily on the evolution of GIS and provides limited detail on its use during the COVID-19 pandemic. A better content flow is needed, with more emphasis on how GIS was applied in the context of COVID-19 and less discussion on its historical development.

3. Methodology

3.1. Data Collection and Survey Instrument

Lines 150-153: How many respondents completed the questionnaire? How many did not respond? How many questionnaires were distributed in each municipality?

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Lines 215-216: “The dataset includes responses from 130 participants, representing a diverse range 215 of local authorities.” Was there only one response per municipality?

Additionally, were all the questions structured using Likert-scale items ranging from 1 (very little) to 5 (very much)? If so, consider adding a table that lists all the variables along with the percentage for each rating level to better present the results visually for this section.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Are there any limitations to this study, such as those related to data collection, analysis, or other aspects?

6. References:

Some of the citations are inconsistent with the reference list. For example, "Tolber (1959)" is cited in the text, but "Tobler (1959)" appears in the reference section. Please check the consistency between the in-text citations and the reference list.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have addressed all of the points raised, which has helped us to significantly improve the clarity and quality of our paper. We have also thoroughly proofread the manuscript to correct the repeated use of acronyms and any citation errors.

Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each of the main comments.

1. On the Introduction

• Reviewer's Comment: The statement about AI models needed citations and more detail.
• Our Response: Thank you for this point. We agree that this statement was a distraction from the main focus of the paper. As part of our complete revision of the manuscript, the Introduction has been rewritten to be more focused on the specific aims of our study: to identify the underlying dimensions of municipal GIS use via an Exploratory Factor Analysis. The general and unsupported statement about AI models has been removed to improve the clarity and focus of the introduction.

2. On the Literature Review

• Reviewer's Comment: The literature review was repetitive, focused too heavily on the history of GIS, and lacked detail on the application of GIS during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Our Response: We agree completely. The Literature Review (Section 2) has been entirely restructured to address these issues. The new version has a clear introduction and three distinct subsections. As you suggested, the detailed history of GIS has been removed, and the review now focuses squarely on the use of GIS in public health and specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have also removed the general list of GIS functionalities to create a more focused narrative.

3. On the Methodology (Data Collection)

• Reviewer's Comment: The manuscript needed to clarify the number of questionnaires distributed and the response rate.
• Our Response: Thank you for pointing out this omission. We have added this information to the first paragraph of Section 3.1. We now clearly state that the questionnaire was distributed to all 240 registered municipalities in Israel, and that the 130 completed surveys represent a voluntary response sample, yielding a 54.2% response rate. We have also clarified that our survey targeted one key official (the Health Portfolio Manager or COVID-19 Coordinator) per municipality.

4. On the Results (Descriptive Statistics)

• Reviewer's Comment: The presentation of the descriptive statistics was unclear, and a table of percentages for all Likert-scale items was suggested.
• Our Response: We agree that the original presentation was difficult to follow. The entire Descriptive Statistics section (4.1) has been restructured. While a single table with all percentages would be very large and difficult to read, we have implemented what we believe is a clearer solution, as suggested by another reviewer. We have created a new comparative summary table (Table 1) that presents the mean scores for both the GIS-user and non-GIS-user groups side-by-side for all key functions. This provides a much more intuitive and concise comparison of the two groups.

5. On the Discussion (Limitations)

• Reviewer's Comment: The study was missing a discussion of its limitations.
• Our Response: This is a very important point. We have now added a new "Limitations and Future Research" subsection to the Discussion (Section 5). This new section acknowledges several limitations, including the use of a voluntary response sample, the focus on a single country (Israel), and the specific timeframe of the study (the fourth wave of the pandemic), and suggests how future research could address these.

6. On the References

• Reviewer's Comment: There were inconsistencies between the in-text citations and the reference list.
• Our Response: Thank you for catching this. We have conducted a thorough review of all in-text citations and have cross-checked them against the reference list to ensure complete accuracy and consistency.

We are confident that these revisions have addressed all of the concerns you raised and have resulted in a much stronger and clearer manuscript. We thank you again for your valuable feedback.