The Impact of Terrain on the Planar Spatial Morphology of Mountain Settlements Studied Using Fractal Dimensions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
your manuscript addresses an interesting topic and you address it quite appropriately. However, I would ask you to still make a small effort to improve some parts of the manuscript. The methodology is ok but perhaps the addition of some bibliographical references would be appropriate. You could do a little better from a theoretical/formal point of view of the models used. The results need to be improved a little. Below you will find some indications relating to the individual sections and some general suggestions that I hope will help you.
Introduction
Section is well-written and supported by a concise literature. However, the first two paragraphs of the section lack references, please try to add more references also for some of the works that you cite in the text and whose authors you indicate and then for the part from line 83 to line 91. You should better specify the objective of the work (what is the real research question?) and add an indication of the added value of this work compared to the existing bibliography. I suggest also to and the description of the structure given to the manuscript.
Data source and research methods
Section is informative and well-written. However, I have few minor comments. The paragraph can simply be called Materials and methods. Please try to broaden the description of the study area and to improve the editing of figures 2 and 3, now it's hard to read them. You listed various approaches for calculating fractal dimensions (line 139-140) and stated the choice of box-counting method (line 141). I would like to know why you settled on that choice. A sentence providing justification for the choice would be enough. Moreover, I suggest using a subscript for (i) with respect to the dependent variables in equation 2 and 3.
Results
Results are well presented, however, those of the econometric analyzes are really poor. For example, of the regression you only show the value of the coefficient. What do X1, X2 and X3 represent in table 4? You should try to improve this part by enriching it a little and above all, harmonizing it better with the rest of the paper, in particular with the objectives and methodology (even if it is presented divided according to the analysis models). In table 1 I think it is not necessary to write "village" next to the name of each village, since it is indicated in the column header. Regarding the General Effect of the MGWR Regression the R-square in Table 3 was 0.371 and you described it as favorable (line 289). To the best of my knowledge an R-square value of 37.1% is not favorable, maybe another word fits better.
Discussion
Results have been well discussed. However, You should try to compare your results with the literature even more. I would move paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5 to the conclusions because I think they are more suitable in that position.
Conclusion
Section is concise with limited policy advice. But with the addition of the two paragraphs now present in the discussions they can improve. Furthermore, I would add an indication of possible future developments of the work
Figures and tables must be separated from the text by a blank line (both before and after).
Please pay attention to the spaces, sometimes they are missing, such as for example on line 185 “150m(Figure4)” should be “150m (Figure4)”, or on line 273 “terrain(Figure 7)” should be “terrain (Figure 7)” .
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper topic could be potentially interesting, but I believe the level is not high enough for publication.
The innovative contribution of this research should be better explained, in comparison with existing literature. The introduction and the state-of-the-art review are not adequate.
Also, the authors should let the reader understand the actual potential impact of this work for specific relevant case studies. The conclusions are typical and do not provide new knowledge in the field. It seems that conclusions can be logically drawn by analyzing the problem of settlement in mountain areas even without reading this research. The research does not fill the research gap, statistical research, novelty are weak.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article deals with the issue of building settlements taking into account the traditions especially in mountainous areas by using fractal dimensions. The topic is interesting and topical regarding linking urban development, traditions, and sustainability.
The aim of the study is described in the "Introduction" section lines 102-106.
The methodology is described including research flowcharts.
The methodology does not describe the input data. Although the text mentions pre-processing the research samples using Remote sensing and GIS, more information about the input data is missing.
Were the data processed in vector or raster format?
How did you create the objects - buildings? What method/technology was used to collect the data and with what accuracy?
Line 178 "where the slope" Based on what data was the slope created?
Were the calculations performed in 3D? Was the position of the buildings in 3D and also the height factor of the buildings taken into account in the calculations?
What materials are the buildings constructed of?
What are the basic climatic characteristics of the site?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article has been significantly revised, the current state of the art has been supplemented, and a better method has been used to assess the data. The discussion and analysis of the results have been improved. After revision, the paper is much better organized and better describes the topic.
Please add a list of abbreviations and symbols.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thank the authors for preparing the responses and supplementing the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
