Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The theses presented are not sufficiently proven and, above all, they compare very different realities without adequately taking these differences into account.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented contents seem to address general ideas on the research topic. Despite the overall interest of the paper's main topic, some sections can be improved, namely, 3 and 4, where authors can highlight the novelty of the developed method. In addition, the configurational aspect of the mentioned problem is not approached. Even knowing is not within the scope of the paper, the referred urban complexity has a physical framework that could be correlated with economical attractiveness issues and the referenced risks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is interesting. But for its better quality I have some suggestions:

1. The abstract of the article should be rewritten: should be more clear and overview all article in logical sequence. The abstract includes research questions, which should be implemented in the introduction and answered in the conclusion. 
2. The literature review and citation should be up-to-date. I found only 2 articles from 2016 and 2018, others are older. 
3. Detailed comments:

• line 74: (...) in many scientific papers." - please, specify what papers;
• line 137: "Based on examined studies (...)" - please, specify what studies;
• line 192: "(...) from official available sites (...)" - please, specify what sites;
• line 193/194: "(...) the forms of data (1) and (2)." - - please, specify what data;
• Table 2 is referred to earlier than diagram 1; however, Table is situated on the 9th page and diagram 1 on the 8th page;
• line 28/29 - there is a repetition of the phrase "Population density on small areas";
• line 192/193 - there is a repetition of word "because".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks, I believe the manuscript has been
sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Sustainability

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper was improved according to the reviewer's suggestions.