V-Factor Indicator in the Assessment of the Change in the Attractiveness of View as a Result of the Implementation of a Specific Planning Scenario
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
While the proposed method (the V-factor) for generating a more wholistic measure of "attractiveness" for alternative urban building scenarios - as a methodological paper the provided draft includes a number of significant shortcomings that must be addressed before reconsideration for publication. These include:
Significant editing for English usage and style throughout the paper (see red highlighted elements in the attached paper for examples of areas where the language used is in particular need of revision)
Terminology used needs to be more clearly defined throughout the paper - especially in the Methods section. (see annotations in manuscript)
The figures need extensive work:
Figure 1 represents the model for City Hall - a building explicitly excluded from the analysis (as noted on line 244). The relevance of this figure is not clear
Figure 2 depicts two different scenarios, but the two parts of the figure use different color symbology for which a legend is not provided, and does not clearly illustrate the differences between the two scenarios
Figures 4 and 5 don't seem to add very much to the paper besides illustrating some range of different values for the different (unmapped) observation points
Figure 6 is more interesting for the insight that it can provide regarding differences between the scenarios, but the scatter plot by observation point is not particularly useful
The "Methods" section does not clearly define the individual terms and fails to provide a clear understanding of the relationships between the elements in the proposed algorithm. A figure that visually illustrates the terms in the algorithm in space (i.e. within a simplified 3d model) could significantly help with this.
The definitions (and other parts of the paper) fail to justify the choices made in the definition or significance of many of the terms used in the algorithm, and methods used in the analysis.
Why was the City Hall excluded from the analysis?
Why the specific 2.5 hectare study area?
What is the significance of the two scenarios used, besides apparently be at hand?
What criteria would/should be used for defining the numeric value for "attractiveness" - even if they are arbitrarily defined (as is implied by the paper) what is included should still be discussed
There are additional questions posed in the attached marked up manuscript that should also be considered in a rewrite of the article.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for the review. The article has been improved as per the comments. I hope that in its current form it meets the requirements of the ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “V-factor indicator in the assessment of change in attractiveness of view as a result of implementation of a specific planning scenario” is a very interesting work that focuses on the use of algorithm of the V-factor in the process of spatial planning. The topic fits the aims of the journal and is relevant on the discourse of sustainable planning of contemporary urban contexts. The use of language is very good from my point (I am not a native speaker). Generally, I think that it is a good paper, the results are interesting and clear and do not require particular extension. In the introduction section, a general description of the research area in which the study in inserted is missing. I would suggest to insert a short description. Furthermore, the authors should clarify in this section the goal of the research work.
The viewing angle of the human eye is approximately 100°, why the values of α range from 0° to 180°? In my opinion, in the conclusion section, the authors should specify how their work could fit into aims of the 2030 Agenda, and in particular in the sustainability objective 11 (11.b): “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”.
Author Response
Thank you for the review. The article has been improved as per the comments. I hope that in its current form it meets the requirements of the ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
My comments are attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for the review. The article has been improved as per the comments. I hope that in its current form it meets the requirements of the ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This version of the paper is a significant improvement over the original submission. With the exception of some additional editorial modifications (highlighted in the attached pdf of the manuscript) I recommend publication. My previous comments have been addressed quite well.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. The article has been corrected as suggested.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
