PONE-D-24-60645 MSPA-Informed SLEUTH urban growth modeling for green space protection in Ottawa PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Salmanmahiny,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 03 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jun Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. 

Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

“Part of the funding for the research presented in this paper was provided for the sabbatical studies of the first author by Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran. Additional funding was kindly provided by Carleton International and by the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at Carleton University.”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

“Part of the funding for the research presented in this paper was provided for the sabbatical studies of the first author by Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran. Additional funding was kindly provided by Carleton International and by the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at Carleton University.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript. 

6. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

7. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: 

“All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.”

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

8. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

9. We note that Figures 1 to 6 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 to 6 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1

Authors must take care of the following suggestion for better understanding the article:

1. Complexity of Calibration: The SLEUTH-3r model requires extensive calibration with multiple parameters (Diffusion, Breed, Spread, etc.), which can make the process time-consuming and potentially prone to human error.

2. Assumptions on Growth Scenarios: The study relies on projected urbanization areas and assumes population growth patterns, which might deviate from reality due to unforeseen demographic, economic, or environmental changes.

3. Data Resolution: The raster resolution of 90x90 meters might not capture finer details in urban growth or green space changes, possibly overlooking critical micro-level variations.

4. Limited Suitability Assessment: While the model implicitly considers factors like slope and land use, it lacks a comprehensive urban suitability analysis that includes proximity to urban centers, infrastructure quality, or socio-economic factors.

Must follow the following articles for better assessment:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-024-11240-1

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101123

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-024-0533-5

https://doi.org/10.1007/s44243-023-00021-y

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-023-00313-7

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2023.05.001

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2023.100990

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-021-10571-7

5. Exclusion of Practical Constraints: Key factors such as land prices, zoning laws, and real-world policy constraints are not incorporated, which could affect the feasibility of the proposed scenarios.

6. Social Equity Weights: The assignment of social equity weights based on limited parameters (e.g., green spaces and population ratios) may not fully capture the complexity of urban socio-environmental dynamics.

7. Validation Limitations: While accuracy metrics like ROC and PR are used, the study could benefit from cross-validation with independent datasets or real-world case studies to enhance reliability.

8. Focus on Static Parameters: The analysis assumes static environmental and socio-political conditions, which may not reflect the dynamic nature of urban planning and green space management.

9. Subjectivity in TOPSIS Weight Assignment: The TOPSIS method, while systematic, is influenced by subjective weight assignments, which might bias the ranking of urban growth scenarios.

10. Limited Participatory Approach: The study suggests involving officials and stakeholders but does not explicitly incorporate participatory methodologies during scenario development or validation.

Reviewer 2

The authors explored the MSPA-Informed SLEUTH urban growth modeling for green space protection in Ottawa. The topic is interesting. However, the quality of writing is too low. The authors should illustrated your points clearly, and let readers understanding. The problems are as follow.

1.The keywords choosed simply. The core connectivity and core importance could be integrated. In general, keywords are phrase, rather than a word.

2.The introduction is really mess. The authors should introduced the insufficient of existing research and which gaps are you solved. In addition, the sentences should be shorted. For example, the content of line 97-101 could be illustrated that SLEUTH-3r has been applied in Baltimore Netherlands and China. Then compared their difference further. Listing the existing research is not allowed. For instance, line 80-93. The authors research......,the authors explored.....,it is lack of sumarizing.

3.The authors should introduced the reason for choosing this study area,rather than introduced basic information of this area simply.

4.The section 2.2 might could be integrated into section 2.3. The formula is also methods.

5.The authors should re-organized the text carefully. It should use less words and sentences to present your ideas clearly. It shouldn't listed the relevant sentence simply, the paper should emphasized the logic and readability.

6.The content of conclusion is like discussion. The discussion should compared difference of your new finding and existing research. Which aspects impoved the MSPA in your research? The conclusion should introduced your research and findings.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors must take care of the following suggestion for better understanding the article:

1. Complexity of Calibration: The SLEUTH-3r model requires extensive calibration with multiple parameters (Diffusion, Breed, Spread, etc.), which can make the process time-consuming and potentially prone to human error.

2. Assumptions on Growth Scenarios: The study relies on projected urbanization areas and assumes population growth patterns, which might deviate from reality due to unforeseen demographic, economic, or environmental changes.

3. Data Resolution: The raster resolution of 90x90 meters might not capture finer details in urban growth or green space changes, possibly overlooking critical micro-level variations.

4. Limited Suitability Assessment: While the model implicitly considers factors like slope and land use, it lacks a comprehensive urban suitability analysis that includes proximity to urban centers, infrastructure quality, or socio-economic factors.

Must follow the following articles for better assessment:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-024-11240-1

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101123

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-024-0533-5

https://doi.org/10.1007/s44243-023-00021-y

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-023-00313-7

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2023.05.001

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2023.100990

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-021-10571-7

5. Exclusion of Practical Constraints: Key factors such as land prices, zoning laws, and real-world policy constraints are not incorporated, which could affect the feasibility of the proposed scenarios.

6. Social Equity Weights: The assignment of social equity weights based on limited parameters (e.g., green spaces and population ratios) may not fully capture the complexity of urban socio-environmental dynamics.

7. Validation Limitations: While accuracy metrics like ROC and PR are used, the study could benefit from cross-validation with independent datasets or real-world case studies to enhance reliability.

8. Focus on Static Parameters: The analysis assumes static environmental and socio-political conditions, which may not reflect the dynamic nature of urban planning and green space management.

9. Subjectivity in TOPSIS Weight Assignment: The TOPSIS method, while systematic, is influenced by subjective weight assignments, which might bias the ranking of urban growth scenarios.

10. Limited Participatory Approach: The study suggests involving officials and stakeholders but does not explicitly incorporate participatory methodologies during scenario development or validation.

Reviewer #2: The authors explored the MSPA-Informed SLEUTH urban growth modeling for green space protection in Ottawa. The topic is interesting. However, the quality of writing is too low. The authors should illustrated your points clearly, and let readers understanding. The problems are as follow.

1.The keywords choosed simply. The core connectivity and core importance could be integrated. In general, keywords are phrase, rather than a word.

2.The introduction is really mess. The authors should introduced the insufficient of existing research and which gaps are you solved. In addition, the sentences should be shorted. For example, the content of line 97-101 could be illustrated that SLEUTH-3r has been applied in Baltimore Netherlands and China. Then compared their difference further. Listing the existing research is not allowed. For instance, line 80-93. The authors research......,the authors explored.....,it is lack of sumarizing.

3.The authors should introduced the reason for choosing this study area,rather than introduced basic information of this area simply.

4.The section 2.2 might could be integrated into section 2.3. The formula is also methods.

5.The authors should re-organized the text carefully. It should use less words and sentences to present your ideas clearly. It shouldn't listed the relevant sentence simply, the paper should emphasized the logic and readability.

6.The content of conclusion is like discussion. The discussion should compared difference of your new finding and existing research. Which aspects impoved the MSPA in your research? The conclusion should introduced your research and findings.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-60645R1 MSPA-Informed SLEUTH urban growth modeling for green space protection in Ottawa PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Salmanmahiny,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 30 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jun Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Major Revision

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Although the authors have revised manuscript carefully, there still have problems need to be revised. The comments are as follow.

1.The innovation and contribution of the paper need to be further highlighted.

Although the paper mentioned tools such as SLEUTH-3r and MSPA, these methods are not novel. The paper's innovations need to be further emphasized, such as: Is it the first time that MSPA core importance and connectivity are integrated into the SLEUTH-3r model? What is the progress or uniqueness of this study compared with existing studies (e.g., Is it also suitable apllied in other cities)?

2.The research hypothesis and objectives are not clear enough.

Although the background of the study is introduced in the introduction section, the hypothesis and specific objectives of the study are not clearly stated. It is suggested to supplement the following contents:

The main assumptions of the study (e.g., can green space protection be achieved through scenario optimization?).

Clear research objectives (such as proposing green space protection strategies applicable to rapidly urbanized areas).

3. The data sources and processing are not clear.

Although the data source section is comprehensive, some of the details of data processing are not clear enough.

For example, how to ensure the consistency between different data sources according to GLC_CFS30, Dynamic World and GAIA classification standards and reclassification details?

The processing of road data is mentioned to be manually deleted through Google Earth, but this subjective method may bring some errors, so it is suggested to discuss its limitations.

4.The construction of the exclusion layer requires more detailed description.

Exclusion layers Exclusion 1 and Exclusion 2 are the key to the study, but the paper describes their construction process vaguely. For example, how to quantify "higher core importance of green space" and "high current area"?

Exclusion 2 The parameter setting of MSPA classification and Conefor calculation in Exclusion 2 should be more detailed.

The differences between the two exclusion layers and their specific impact on the results need to be discussed in depth.

5.There are deficiencies in the model calibration and verification section.

Although the calibration of SLEUTH-3r is mentioned to use OSM indicators, the calibration steps and parameter Settings are not explained in detail. It is suggested to supplement the weight and selection basis of each index in the calibration process. The validation section uses only ROC and PR indicators, without explaining why these indicators were chosen or discussing the potential uncertainty of model predictions. It is suggested to discuss the applicability of ROC and PR results, and whether there are other indicators that can be supplemented (such as Kappa coefficient).

6.The limitations of scenario analysis is insufficient in discussion

Although the paper puts forward 8 scenarios, it does not discuss the limitations and applicability of each scenario.

For example, will "compact growth" lead to social and economic imbalances in some regions? How scientific is the distribution basis and adjustment method of social equity weight? It is suggested to supplement the discussion.

7. The figures and tables questions:

Some figures lack clear explanations (such as the meaning of colors and symbols in Figure 4-6), which may lead to difficulties in understanding. The numerical comparison in table 3 is clear, but lacks a prominent description of key results (such as core data for the optimal scenario). It is recommended to add more explanatory text in the chart description and clearly emphasize the conclusions of key charts in the text.

8.The keywords are too much. I suggest remove the Ontario,Scenario.

9.In line 92, the authors mentioned the appropriate resolution of input images for the model to function effectively remains a research gap. Is this gap solved in your research?

10.The sub-title 2.1 should be revised to study area. The 2.2 should be revised to Data source. The 2.3 could revised to Methods.

11.In line 134-135, this area has recently undergone rapid urban growth, threatening green spaces and justifying the need to focus on future city growth projections and effective management strategies. It should be illustrated detailed further. Such as supply data.

12.I have a question, the earliest OSM street is 2014, how to get 1900,2000,2010 road network? It should be illustrated clearly.

13.The logic is a little mess. Such as the content of SLEUTH-3r could be integrated in method section. The content of scenarios also could be integrated. I suggest add a technique map in method section to make it clear. In line 330, a sentence as a paragraph is not suitable.

14.The content should corresponding to specific figures or tables. Such as line 283-287, and line 305-310.

15.The language and expression problems.

Some sentences are too long and not concise enough, such as the introduction and methods sections.

It is recommended to further polish the language to ensure that the expression is concise and logical.

16.The references cited are not standard enough. For example, the section 2.2 data source, this section is not necessary cited references. The references should not repeat shown many times in this manuscript such as line 212 and 213, the number should be in sequence，like 1,2,3....50. The citation in line 156-157,165 also not necessary.

17.Some important references should be cited in line 59-60 as follow.

Spatiotemporal patterns of vegetation phenology along the urban-rural gradient in Coastal Dalian, China.Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,2020,54,126784.doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126784

Spatiotemporal variation characteristics of green space ecosystem service value at urban fringes: A case study on Ganjingzi District in Dalian, China.Science of The Total Environment,2018,639:1453-1461.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.253

Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of urban land area and PM2.5 concentration in China. Urban Climate,2022,45:101268. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101268.

Spatial influence of exposure to green spaces on the climate comfort of urban habitats in China. Urban Climate,2023,51:101657. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2023.101657.

Reviewer #3: This article comprehensively utilizes the SLEUTH-3r model, MSPA method, and TOPSIS method to study how to protect Ottawa's green spaces in the context of urban expansion, providing insights into future social equity and compact city scenarios, and achieving interesting results that serve as an important reference for local governments. My suggestions are as follows:

Further emphasize the article's innovation points. Clearly articulate the article's innovations in the introduction or discussion section and supplement existing related research more extensively. For example, the authors could reference the role of rooftop greening and pocket parks (10.1016/j.scs.2025.106261, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2023.12.007) as well as the benefits of protecting green corridors for urban ecology (10.3390/land11020165, 10.1016/j.apgeog.2024.103439).

Is collecting land use data every ten years for prediction too coarse? In the methods section, provide reasons for the selected time points, such as data availability and the validity of the time span for urban growth prediction. Would more detailed temporal classifications improve model accuracy? How would using higher-resolution data (e.g., 30 meters or 10 meters) affect model results? Could future research be suggested to verify this?

What is the definition of a compact city scenario? How can it be more accurately quantified? Suggest adding a clear definition of a compact city in Section 2.3.7, for example: "A compact city emphasizes high-density development, mixed land use, and efficient transportation systems." Provide specific quantitative indicators, such as building density (building area per hectare), population density (population per square kilometer), spatial proportion, high-rise building proportion, or average building height. Explain the rationale for simulating compact cities by adjusting diffusion, breed, road gravity, and slope resistance coefficients in the SLEUTH-3r model.

How are the weights in the TOPSIS method assigned? In Section 2.3.9, describe the weight allocation method in detail and explain the rationale for assigning weights to each indicator, such as why the affected core area is given the highest weight. Compare this with other methods like the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) or entropy weight method. The authors mention sensitivity analysis of weights (e.g., the 20,000 iterations mentioned in the article); please further explain its impact on the results.

What is the rationale for selecting green space cores (including cores, perforations, and edges)? Is there sufficient justification? Suggest supplementing the explanation of the MSPA classification method and its application in selecting green space cores in Section 2.3.1. Cite relevant literature to support the rationale for selecting cores, perforations, and edges, such as their significance to ecosystem connectivity. Based on the evaluation results from Conefor software, explain the significance of core selection for overall green space protection.

In the conclusion section, expand the discussion on future research directions, such as how to optimize the model by incorporating more socio-economic factors and policy changes. Further clarify the practical application value of the article, such as providing scientific guidance for urban planners and policymakers, for example, what protection strategies should be adopted in different regions and whether these strategies have room for dynamic adjustments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-60645R2 MSPA-Informed SLEUTH urban growth modeling for green space protection in Ottawa PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Salmanmahiny,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 19 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jun Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript have been improved. However, there still have some problems need to be revised.

1.Although the paper the first mentions combination of MSPA and SLEUTH-3r, it does not fully elaborated its theoretical contribution. For example, how to expand the existing SLEUTH-3r application scope, or how to fill the gap of MSPA in urban expansion modeling?

2.The SLEUTH-3r calibration step has been added, there is still a lack of detailed discussion on how to adjust the key parameters (such as Diffusion, Breed, Road Gravity, etc.), especially how to derive these parameters from actual geographical conditions.

3.The paper mentions that "compact cities" may lead to social and economic imbalances, but the specific suggestion are not mentioned. For example, how different income groups will be affected?

4.It is lack of green space protection policy of different regions (such as urban core area and suburbs), and there is a lack of more targeted practical guidance.

5.Some paragraphs in the paper are too long (such as the method section), which affects the fluency of reading. For example, Introduction and Methods sections can be further compressed to highlight the key points.

6.The symbol interpretation of some charts (such as Figure 4-6) is still brief, and the spatial differences of different scenarios are not intuitively reflected.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The manuscript have been improved. However, there still have some problems need to be revised.

1.Although the paper the first mentions combination of MSPA and SLEUTH-3r, it does not fully elaborated its theoretical contribution. For example, how to expand the existing SLEUTH-3r application scope, or how to fill the gap of MSPA in urban expansion modeling?

2.The SLEUTH-3r calibration step has been added, there is still a lack of detailed discussion on how to adjust the key parameters (such as Diffusion, Breed, Road Gravity, etc.), especially how to derive these parameters from actual geographical conditions.

3.The paper mentions that "compact cities" may lead to social and economic imbalances, but the specific suggestion are not mentioned. For example, how different income groups will be affected?

4.It is lack of green space protection policy of different regions (such as urban core area and suburbs), and there is a lack of more targeted practical guidance.

5.Some paragraphs in the paper are too long (such as the method section), which affects the fluency of reading. For example, Introduction and Methods sections can be further compressed to highlight the key points.

6.The symbol interpretation of some charts (such as Figure 4-6) is still brief, and the spatial differences of different scenarios are not intuitively reflected.

Reviewer #3: This article has addressed all my questions. I believe it has met the standards for journal publication, and I have no further comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

MSPA-Informed SLEUTH urban growth modeling for green space protection in Ottawa

PONE-D-24-60645R3

Dear Dr. Salmanmahiny,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jun Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Accept

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: All the comments have been addressed.The authors have improved the quality of paper. The manuscript could be accepted.

Reviewer #3: I would like to thank to the authors for their effort of revising the manuscript. In last round I have completed my review. However, I want to point out that I have a small suggestions: I don't understand what the numbers mean on the edge of all the map figures such as fig.1-fig.6? Is that a projection coordinate values？why don't you use lat&lon? Please confirm that your map coordinate notation is correct. I have no other comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********