Integrating Social, Economic, and Environmental Factors to Evaluate How Competitive Urban Landscapes Are for the Development of Sustainable Cities: Penang Island in Malaysia as a Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article investigates the influence of urban landscape on urban competitiveness from the perspective of sustainability, and establishes a comprehensive evaluation system that balances economic, socio-cultural and environmental factors through the Delphi method, and conducts an evaluation study with penang island, Malaysia as the research object. Many previous studies have fully demonstrated that economic and production factors are important manifestations of urban competitiveness, and some studies have extended the study of urban competitiveness to urban landscape, and we also note that this article fills the gap in the study of urban influence in penang island, Malaysia. However, in terms of the research purpose of the article, the authors should also need to demonstrate the impact of urban landscape on urban competitiveness in the study area with a meticulous literature review or prior research.

The second chapter of the article presents the authors' construction of primary and secondary criteria for urban landscape evaluation using the Delphi method, a system whose resume was processed through three rounds of data collection and eight specific stages. What is certain is that this system was built by adopting data provided by experts with specialized knowledge backgrounds and by going through a long and meticulous research cycle. We would like to know whether the authors provided these experts with detailed and uniform background information and historical data, and whether they ensured that the experts' evaluations were based on strictly intuitive data, so as to maximize the consistency of the assessment scale.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article investigates the influence of urban landscape on urban competitiveness from the perspective of sustainability, and establishes a comprehensive evaluation system that balances economic, socio-cultural and environmental factors through the Delphi method, and conducts an evaluation study with penang island, Malaysia as the research object. Many previous studies have fully demonstrated that economic and production factors are important manifestations of urban competitiveness, and some studies have extended the study of urban competitiveness to urban landscape, and we also note that this article fills the gap in the study of urban influence in penang island, Malaysia. However, in terms of the research purpose of the article, the authors should also need to demonstrate the impact of urban landscape on urban competitiveness in the study area with a meticulous literature review or prior research.

The second chapter of the article presents the authors' construction of primary and secondary criteria for urban landscape evaluation using the Delphi method, a system whose resume was processed through three rounds of data collection and eight specific stages. What is certain is that this system was built by adopting data provided by experts with specialized knowledge backgrounds and by going through a long and meticulous research cycle.

1. We would like to know whether the authors provided these experts with detailed and uniform background information and historical data, and whether they ensured that the experts' evaluations were based on strictly intuitive data, so as to maximize the consistency of the assessment scale.

• Author’s Response: Thank you for your thoughtful question and inquiry regarding the manuscript.

These experts were given comprehensive and uniform background material and historical data, and their judgments were solely based on intuition.

We had various meetings with experts in government organizations, and during those discussions, we discussed models and historical information derived from our own research and reports (DAHP and model software). in order to increase the evaluation scale's uniformity.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study examines the competitiveness of urban landscapes as a means of sustainable city creation by integrating different factors in the study area. The manuscript is well written, the methods are adequately described, and the findings are clearly explained. Below are my comments:

1. The Abstract section is fully qualitative. I suggest adding some of the quantitative findings in this section.

2. The Introduction section is very large which makes it hard to follow. I'd recommend the authors either to add a Literature Review section and thus shorten the Introduction or, summarize the Introduction section where the authors had very little input.

3. I did not find a clear list of criteria and sub-criteria and the reason(s) of choosing them in the paper. This can be added as an Appendix at the end of the manuscript.

4. The authors need to add the full form of some of the Jargons at least once (e.g.: MCDA, DAHP, SULDA). Also, are the terms SULDA, SULD, and SUL used interchangeably? If so, this needs to be clarified in the paper.

Author Response

This study examines the competitiveness of urban landscapes as a means of sustainable city creation by integrating different factors in the study area. The manuscript is well written, the methods are adequately described, and the findings are clearly explained. Below are my comments:

1. The Abstract section is fully qualitative. I suggest adding some of the quantitative findings in this section.

• Author’s Response: We appreciate you taking the time and thought to leave a comment. Your suggestion was taken into account.
• In the abstract section, we've incorporated a few of the quantitative findings. Please see lines 20 through 37 on page 1.

2. The Introduction section is very large which makes it hard to follow. I'd recommend the authors either to add a Literature Review section and thus shorten the Introduction or, summarize the Introduction section where the authors had very little input.

• Author’s Response: I appreciate your kind comments on the text very much.
• The introduction section now only has pages 3, down from five. Reference pages 2, 3, and 4, please.

3. I did not find a clear list of criteria and sub-criteria and the reason(s) of choosing them in the paper. This can be added as an Appendix at the end of the manuscript.

• Author’s Response: Thank you so much for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully.
• All of the criteria and sub-criteria have been selected in accordance with professional judgment and literature reviews. In government agency meetings, we discussed and then came to a resolution for each criterion, its sub-criteria, and several departmental specialists. Based on expert recommendations and views, we changed the criteria and sub-criteria in the meeting. We also introduced expert choice software to put the scores from experts in the meetings.

4. The authors need to add the full form of some of the Jargons at least once (e.g.: MCDA, DAHP, SULDA). Also, are the terms SULDA, SULD, and SUL used interchangeably? If so, this needs to be clarified in the paper.

• Author’s Response: Many thanks for your kind comment and question about the manuscript.
• Your comments were implemented. The entire manuscript has been revised and enhanced.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx