The paper handled most of the vocabularies/definitions related to measuring the obesogenic environment, however, it lacks originality. Also, the title is partially relevant to the purpose of the paper. It could be “Assessing the role of the built environment in influencing obesity” by eliminating the Geographical information systems GIS part. As the authors did not cover it appropriately along with the paper, they just mentioned this term sometimes without supporting any technical details or clarification of procedures.

The References are appropriate, recent, and referenced correctly, but the authors focused more on medical-based resources and neglected the GIS or Planning perspective. And this is a very important part that should be cited. Not handling the topic just as “Public health researchers with an interest in the built environment” as mentioned in paragraph 2 in the background section.

“This glossary introduces unfamiliar users to key terminology and some of the ways in which GIS can be utilized to measure and represent features of the built environment that may relate to obesity as well as highlighting some basic methodological issues.” The aim of the paper is clear. However, the problem is not clear and not well defined; the knowledge gap must be mentioned. Authors have to focus on the debate or gap of previous research to form a clear question for this paper.

The process is clear and very basic. And there are some comments on it. Firstly, the authors should rethink how they categorized the data. I think it would be better if it was divided into other two sections: measures of the built environment and measures of physical activity resources, instead of primary and secondary data. Accordingly, the measurements section should also be restructured based on the same categories. Secondly, the authors mentioned that “Both primary and secondary data often require manual geocoding to transpose the data into a GIS compatible format.” I think it is easier and more relevant to geocode the data using GIS directly. Thirdly, there are three methods of density analysis that have been used in the geographical information system GIS analysis: (1) Point density; (2) Line density, and (3) Kernel Density. I think it is relevant to mention the differences, advantages, and disadvantages, especially why the use of Kernel density is better to be used as mentioned in this paper.

It was expected also to talk about “Physical Activity Resources Assessment PARA tools, as an observational tool that is used for data acquisition.

In the discussion section the 19th, 21st, 23rd lines were wrongly cited, the website address should be replaced by the reference number. There is no added data in the discussion section it is repetitive. No significant results were discussed.

Overall, the paper presents an interesting and useful study, as it is citable and confirms the previous reports, but it could have been improved. The authors followed a protocol that has recently been technically updated.

Major points in the article need additional information:

1. Covering both the assessment of the built environment and the physical activity resources besides the food environment as they are all essential aspects that affect obesity.
2. Revising the Geocoding part using Geographic information systems
3. Differences between the different density analysis and calculations
4. Supporting each mentioned analysis with the relevant figures.
5. Adding other resources from the urban and GIS discipline
6. Rewrite the Literature, as it should reflect the debate and gaps in previous research. And the Discussion parts should give new findings and insights

Minor points

1. 2In the discussion section the 19th, 21st, 23rd lines were wrongly cited, the website address should be replaced by the reference number.