Visual Analysis to Assess Attraction and Organisation of Contemporary Metropolitan Systems—A Case Study of Central and Northern Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

interesting paper. I would make some few objections,

1. Visual Analysis Methodology: The innovative use of graphical-analytical analysis may raise questions about its precision and objectivity, as visual representation of complex data can be subject to subjective interpretation. More detailed discussion on how these subjective interpretations are controlled would be beneficial.

2. Generalization of Results: The study focuses on Italy, particularly the central and northern regions. This might limit the applicability of the findings to other geographic or urban contexts with different characteristics. Discussing how these methods could be adapted or whether they are applicable in different geographical and cultural contexts would be advantageous.

3. Comparison with Other Models or Theories: The paper could benefit from a more comprehensive comparison with existing urban analysis and planning models.

4. Critical Analysis of Results: A deeper discussion on the interpretation of results, including any unexpected findings or contradictions with previous studies, would add depth to the analysis.

Nice work!

1.  

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for highlighting certain aspects of the research that are of fundamental importance and thus giving us the opportunity to clarify more precisely.

In general, we enriched the bibliographical base concerning both the methodological part and the comparison with further research. We have considerably developed the results part with the inclusion of more effective inforgraphics to represent our case study, we have expanded the final discussion part by also highlighting the limits of the research and future lines of development to allow for a generalisation of the methodology and its application in different contexts.

In the attached file are all the changes

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attachment file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for highlighting certain aspects of the research that are of fundamental importance and thus giving us the opportunity to clarify more precisely.

In general, we enriched the bibliographical base concerning both the methodological part and the comparison with further research. We have considerably developed the results part with the inclusion of more effective inforgraphics to represent our case study, we have expanded the final discussion part by also highlighting the limits of the research and future lines of development to allow for a generalisation of the methodology and its application in different contexts.

In the attached file are all the changes

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In principle, this is an interesting topic. I also think the illustrations are basically successful (apart from the lack of legibility of some of the lettering). The problem I have with the article is that its objective is not clear. What is the benefit for the professional community? I got the impression that the article is overburdened with the presentation of the historical development of cartographic representations, the actual analysis and the development of innovative forms of representation and can hardly do justice to the respective topics. This also becomes clear in a rather rudimentary discussion and classification of the results in the current state of research. My recommendation for the article is a thematic focus with a stronger contextualization with the current state of research. The revision should also make it clearer to what extent the article addresses the topic of sustainability. This is dealt with rather formally in the current version.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for highlighting certain aspects of the research that are of fundamental importance and thus giving us the opportunity to clarify more precisely.

In general, we enriched the bibliographical base concerning both the methodological part and the comparison with further research. We have considerably developed the results part with the inclusion of more effective inforgraphics to represent our case study, we have expanded the final discussion part by also highlighting the limits of the research and future lines of development to allow for a generalisation of the methodology and its application in different contexts.

In the attached file are all the changes

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you very much for the instructive revision. The paper has become much more concise. With best regards