Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All of my comments and suggestions are provided in the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Manuscript: Emerging Technologies and Urban Design for Sustainable Urban Transitions: A Review Integrating Smart City Systems, Artificial Intelligence, and Systems Science

We thank the Editor and the three Reviewers for their careful and constructive assessment. The manuscript has been substantially strengthened while retaining its original conceptual scope. In the revised redline manuscript, deleted/replaced material is shown with strikethrough and new or revised material in blue. Reviewer 2’s substantive unnumbered suggestions are numbered R2.1–R2.4 below for clarity.

Reviewer 1

R1.1

Reviewer comment: Clearly identify the manuscript as a review article, including in the title.

Response: The title now explicitly identifies the article as a review. The Abstract and Methods likewise identify it as a critical narrative review with a structured supplementary literature update.

R1.2

Reviewer comment: Reduce the keywords to a maximum of eight.

Response: The keyword list has been reduced to eight, as requested.

R1.3

Reviewer comment: Provide a reproducible and auditable review methodology, including databases/search strategy, inclusion/exclusion and relevance assessment.

Response: Section 2 now explains the original narrative corpus and reports the structured supplementary literature update conducted on 28 August 2026, including search themes, publisher and journal platforms used for verification, date emphasis, inclusion/exclusion logic and qualitative synthesis. The manuscript explicitly avoids retrospectively claiming a PRISMA/systematic review and cites SANRA for transparent narrative-review reporting.

R1.4

Reviewer comment: Map the three objectives more clearly to the manuscript; resilience in Objective 3 requires fuller treatment.

Response: The Introduction and Section 2 now map each objective to corresponding stages and sections. Resilience is addressed explicitly in ecological/outcome evaluation, Challenges, Discussion, limitations and Conclusions.

R1.5

Reviewer comment: Map the four evaluative questions to the three objectives and add a comprehensive flowchart.

Response: A new synthesis schematic (Figure 5) maps objectives, evaluative questions, process stages and manuscript sections and establishes the iterative chain from inputs through evaluation and feedback.

R1.6

Reviewer comment: Strengthen the methodological basis and references in Section 2.

Response: Section 2 now defines the critical narrative-review approach, explains its heterogeneous evidence base, documents the supplementary update and adds methodological support.

R1.7

Reviewer comment: Clarify the basis of Table 1, relevant classifications, whether it is adopted or author-developed, and add references and city examples.

Response: Table 1 is now explicitly an author-developed analytical synthesis rather than a universal taxonomy. Supporting references and representative cases—Barcelona, Seoul, Songdo and Freiburg—have been added.

R1.8

Reviewer comment: Justify the four model labels as original or adapted taxonomy.

Response: Section 4 now explicitly identifies the four models as an author-developed functional grouping for this review.

R1.9

Reviewer comment: The ‘Human-Interactive Model’ label does not fit passive sensing.

Response: It has been replaced by “Urban Sensing and Participatory Observation,” with passive, participatory and bidirectional forms distinguished.

R1.10

Reviewer comment: Geodesign relies on one citation; add further support.

Response: The geodesign subsection has been expanded, supplemented with an additional reference and positioned as a bridge between spatial evidence, scenario development, impact assessment and design action.

R1.11

Reviewer comment: Tighten the Figure 1 cross-reference.

Response: Figure/table cross-referencing was audited during consolidation. The new synthesis schematic is numbered Figure 5 to avoid collision with the pre-existing figure sequence.

R1.12

Reviewer comment: The broad [19–31] citation range for human-centred AI is excessive.

Response: The broad range has been replaced with a smaller set of directly pertinent references, and the argument is sharpened around agency, oversight and responsibility.

R1.13

Reviewer comment: Update the genetic-algorithm discussion beyond Holland (1975).

Response: Holland is retained as foundational, while recent urban applications involving green-space location, morphology and multi-objective spatial planning have been added.

R1.14

Reviewer comment: Add at least one applied AI-aided design case.

Response: Section 5 now includes applied generative urban-design/planning examples involving plot subdivision, housing allocation and urban-layout generation.

R1.15

Reviewer comment: Add an applied parametric/swarm project or city example.

Response: Section 6 now includes applied urban examples, including Tianjin and Dubai.

R1.16

Reviewer comment: Update pedestrian simulation beyond Helbing and Molnár (1995).

Response: The foundational reference is retained and supplemented by recent agent-based pedestrian modelling, including work addressing route choice, walkability and uncertainty.

R1.17

Reviewer comment: Provide a real applied AHP/ANP/BOCR example.

Response: The revised section includes stakeholder-informed flood-risk assessment in Istanbul and neighbourhood sustainability applications.

R1.18

Reviewer comment: Clarify when a designer would choose DEX versus AHP/ANP and whether they can be combined.

Response: The revised text distinguishes DEX for qualitative rule-based evaluation, AHP for hierarchical pairwise prioritisation and ANP for interdependent criteria, and explains possible complementary use.

R1.19

Reviewer comment: Add an applied case to reconciliation ecology/DeMo.

Response: Section 8 now presents DeMo as an emerging applied example, compares it with green-infrastructure/nature-based-solutions practice and explicitly acknowledges its limited validation base.

R1.20

Reviewer comment: Broaden the ISUQ synthesis beyond one reference.

Response: Section 9 now presents ISUQ as a context-specific outcome-evaluation example and compares it with LEED-ND, BREEAM Communities, CASBEE-UD and broader assessment literature.

R1.21

Reviewer comment: Add a final synthesis framework/flowchart.

Response: Figure 5 links objectives and evaluative questions to technological/data inputs → analysis → design support → decision → spatial intervention → outcome evaluation → feedback/adaptation.

R1.22

Reviewer comment: Remove references from the Conclusions.

Response: The Conclusions have been rewritten without supporting citations.

R1.23

Reviewer comment: Move/disclose AI-assisted writing appropriately rather than only in Acknowledgments.

Response: The revised manuscript includes an explicit GenAI disclosure in Methods and product/use information in Acknowledgments, with author verification and responsibility stated.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well written and is highly valuable to a wide audience that has not delved into emerging technologies in the field of spatial planning and design. In this regard, I also believe that the article will be of interest to an audience broader than that closely affiliated with urban design.

I too agree with the author that the literature is fragmented across architecture, urban planning, and other disciplines (see line 72). One of the manuscript’s strengths is that it groups and structures a wide array of emerging technologies, which, in itself, allows the reader to better understand the role and contribution of each technology within the context of urban intervention. After all, classification constitutes the fundamental basis for understanding. The use of examples allows the reader to engage more effectively with the content and, at least in my case, was very helpful in understanding the concepts presented. Overall, I appreciated the opportunity to become informed about the objectives and limitations of a wide array of emerging technologies, and I believe this will be equally useful to the readership of Land.

In essence, the paper revisits a long-standing question in a highly contemporary context: the limits of technological tools and the role of those who use them. At a time when emerging technologies, particularly AI, receive enormous attention and increasingly acquire generative capabilities, the manuscript appropriately places them back in the position of tools that support, rather than determine, desirable outcomes. The emphasis on human judgement, responsibility, and contextual interpretation is one of the paper’s strongest contributions.

I have only a few suggestions for clarification:

• The concept of ‘systems science’ should be further explained. A short clarification would help readers understand how the term is used in this specific article. This is particularly important within the field of spatial planning, given the tradition of McLoughlin’s systems planning in the 1970s.
• The manuscript consistently use the term ‘urban design’, although in several contexts the term ‘urban planning’ could also be appropriate. I have no objection the author to retain ‘urban design’ as the central term, but this choice should be briefly explained. For readers from architecture and planning backgrounds, urban design may refer to a particular spatial scale (regional planning > urban planning > urban design), to the physical design of urban space rather than its planning, or, more broadly, to the design/planning activity within urban environments. Interestingly, in lines 471-473, the text refers both to the planning and the design of urban space.
• The central role assigned to urban design also raises the question of agency. If technologies are tools, who ultimately ensures that they serve sustainability, inclusiveness, and other desired objectives? Is this mainly a matter of the urban design process, or does it depend on the actors (architects, planners, urban designers) who employ these tools? A brief discussion or clarification of this issue would further strengthen the manuscript’s argument concerning human judgement and responsibility.
• The subtitle (Integrating Smart City Systems, Artificial Intelligence, and Systems Science) places strong emphasis on these fields and may suggest that the paper proposes a specific integration methodology. Since the manuscript is a literature review, the author may consider indicating this in the subtitle.

 

Author Response

Manuscript: Emerging Technologies and Urban Design for Sustainable Urban Transitions: A Review Integrating Smart City Systems, Artificial Intelligence, and Systems Science

We thank the Editor and the three Reviewers for their careful and constructive assessment. The manuscript has been substantially strengthened while retaining its original conceptual scope. In the revised redline manuscript, deleted/replaced material is shown with strikethrough and new or revised material in blue. Reviewer 2’s substantive unnumbered suggestions are numbered R2.1–R2.4 below for clarity.

Reviewer 2

R2.1

Reviewer comment: Explain ‘systems science’, especially relative to McLoughlin’s systems-planning tradition.

Response: The Introduction now defines systems science through interdependence, feedback and emergence, while acknowledging but distinguishing the earlier systems-planning tradition.

R2.2

Reviewer comment: Explain why urban design is central rather than urban planning; acknowledge overlap.

Response: The Introduction and Discussion acknowledge overlap and explain that urban design is central because the review focuses on how strategic, technological and systemic knowledge becomes spatial configuration and lived urban form; it is not presented as a substitute for planning.

R2.3

Reviewer comment: Clarify agency: who ensures sustainability and inclusiveness if technologies are tools?

Response: The revised manuscript explicitly identifies designers, planners, architects, agencies, elected authorities, infrastructure providers, communities and other stakeholders as retaining responsibility for objectives, evidence, interpretation, trade-offs and authorisation.

R2.4

Reviewer comment: Clarify that the paper is a literature review.

Response: The revised title includes “A Review,” and the Abstract and Section 2 explicitly identify the manuscript as a critical narrative review with a structured supplementary update.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a timely topic and appropriately emphasizes that emerging technologies should support, rather than determine, urban design. However, the paper currently reads as a broad collection of concepts rather than a coherent critical review. Substantial restructuring and stronger evidence are required.

1. The manuscript lacks a clear structural hierarchy. Technologies, analytical methods, design approaches, ecological concepts, decision models, and assessment tools are presented as parallel sections despite serving different functions. The paper should be reorganized around a consistent process, such as data acquisition, reference searching strategy, analysis, decision-making, and outcome evaluation. In addition, the discussion of the ISUQ application in lines 405–418 belongs in Section 9 rather than the section on ethical challenges.

2. The main argument is not consistently developed. The title and abstract emphasize smart city systems, artificial intelligence, systems science, and sustainable urban transitions, but the body devotes considerable attention to DEX, AHP, BOCR, reconciliation ecology, DeMo, and ISUQ without explaining why these particular approaches were selected. Digital twins, despite their prominence in the title and introduction, receive limited critical analysis. The manuscript should establish a clear chain linking technological inputs, design decisions, spatial interventions, and sustainability outcomes. The concept of “sustainable urban transitions” also requires stronger theoretical grounding.

3. The review method and literature base are insufficient. Section 2 does not report the databases, search terms, search period, eligibility criteria, screening process, or synthesis procedure. The literature is also dated for a review of emerging technologies. Only five of the 55 references were published from 2022 onward, and several are only indirectly related to the main topic. Recent research on generative AI, explainable AI, urban digital twins, computer vision, participatory AI, and model uncertainty should be included. The relevance and accuracy of several citations, particularly the broad citation range “[19–31],”(Page 6, line 229) should also be checked.

4. The basis of Tables 1 and 2 is unclear.Table 1 provides no explicit source, consistent classification criterion, or supporting cases. Its four city types overlap and combine technology-based categories with an environmentally oriented development model. The authors must clearly explain the basis for this classification, cite the literature from which it was derived or adapted, and provide representative city cases supporting each category and its proposed urban-design implications.
    Table 2 appears to be adapted from Garau and Pavan [50], but this is not acknowledged. ISUQ is a specific framework tested in only two neighborhoods in Cagliari, not a widely validated assessment system. It should be presented as one example within a broader outcome-evaluation stage and compared with other established urban assessment frameworks.

5. The claimed contribution remains largely asserted rather than demonstrated. Positioning urban design as an integrating framework is potentially valuable, but the manuscript does not clearly explain how this differs from existing work on integrated planning, geodesign, or socio-technical systems. Figures 1–4 mainly repeat the text and do not provide a sufficiently original synthesis. The Discussion and Conclusions are also repetitive and should focus more clearly on comparative findings, limitations, boundary conditions, and the specific contribution of the review.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

R3.1

Reviewer comment: The manuscript lacks structural hierarchy; reorganise around a consistent process and relocate ISUQ application material.

Response: The revision establishes a consistent process hierarchy from technological/data inputs to outcome evaluation and feedback. ISUQ is now situated in Section 9 as outcome evaluation.

R3.2

Reviewer comment: The main argument is inconsistent; selection of methods is unclear and digital twins are under-analysed. Strengthen the transition chain and theory.

Response: The revised manuscript explains the functional position of each method family, expands digital-twin evidence on implementation gaps, interoperability and governance, and frames sustainable urban transition as long-term socio-technical, spatial, institutional and ecological change.

R3.3

Reviewer comment: Strengthen review method and recent literature, including generative AI, explainable AI, digital twins, computer vision, participatory AI and uncertainty; check broad citations.

Response: Section 2 now reports a transparent supplementary update. Recent literature has been added across generative AI, digital twins, computer vision, participatory/human-centred AI and uncertainty, and the broad citation range has been reduced.

R3.4

Reviewer comment: Clarify Table 1; acknowledge Table 2 adaptation and limited ISUQ validation; compare with established frameworks.

Response: Table 1 is now an explicitly author-developed synthesis with sources and cases. Table 2 is explicitly adapted from Garau and Pavan; ISUQ’s limited empirical base is acknowledged and compared with established neighbourhood sustainability assessment systems.

R3.5

Manuscript: Emerging Technologies and Urban Design for Sustainable Urban Transitions: A Review Integrating Smart City Systems, Artificial Intelligence, and Systems Science

We thank the Editor and the three Reviewers for their careful and constructive assessment. The manuscript has been substantially strengthened while retaining its original conceptual scope. In the revised redline manuscript, deleted/replaced material is shown with strikethrough and new or revised material in blue. Reviewer 2’s substantive unnumbered suggestions are numbered R2.1–R2.4 below for clarity.

Reviewer comment: Demonstrate the contribution relative to integrated planning, geodesign and socio-technical systems; improve synthesis, limitations and Conclusions.

Response: The Discussion now distinguishes the proposed urban-design mediation role from integrated planning, geodesign and socio-technical transition frameworks, identifies four connected forms of intelligence, states limitations and boundary conditions, and sharpens the Conclusions around the specific contribution.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment: The author states that the SANRA tool was used to assess the quality of the review. However, the manuscript does not provide sufficient details regarding how the SANRA assessment was conducted. SANRA is a brief, six-item standardized instrument in which each item is scored on a scale from 0 (low standard) to 2 (high standard), allowing for a structured assessment of the quality of narrative review articles. The authors are requested to clearly describe the application of SANRA in the methodology, including the criteria used for scoring each of the six items and the total score obtained. In particular, the assessment should address the relevance of the reviewed literature to the main research objective or question. I recommend that the authors present the SANRA assessment results in a table and provide this table as an appendix. 

Author Response

Comment: The SANRA assessment needs to be described in detail, including the six criteria, item scores, total score, relevance to the research question, and an appendix table.

Response: Agreed. Section 2 now explains SANRA as a six-item narrative-review quality instrument scored 0–2 per item and states the item-level self-assessment. Appendix A provides the six criteria, scores, and rationales. The revised self-assessment is 11/12: importance 2; aims/research question 2; literature search 1; referencing 2; scientific reasoning 2; presentation of relevant evidence 2. We explicitly retain a score of 1 for literature search because Scopus and Google Scholar, the 2021–2026 evidence window, search logic, and eligibility criteria are now reported, but prospective retrieval and screening counts were not recorded. This avoids overstating methodological certainty and directly links the SANRA assessment to the paper’s central research question.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript contains substantial additions, but several responses overstate the extent to which the original concerns have been resolved. The topic, review evidence, organizing logic, and basis of the proposed synthesis remain insufficiently clear.

1. The scope and central question require clarification. “Emerging technologies” is central to the title but is not defined. The authors should specify whether “emerging” refers to publication date, technological novelty, rapid adoption, limited implementation maturity, or new applications in urban design. GIS, BIM, AHP, swarm intelligence, and several other reviewed approaches are not themselves emerging technologies. The manuscript should distinguish established what is genuinely emerging from established methods being applied in new ways. The abstract, main text, and Conclusions should then be aligned around one explicit research question. At present, the abstract emphasizes smart-city systems, AI, systems science, and urban design, while the body covers a much broader and partly inconsistent collection of technologies, methods, ecological concepts, and assessment tools.

2. The review method and evidence base remain insufficiently transparent. Section 2 does not identify the exact databases, final search dates, complete search strings, number of records retrieved, screening results, or final number of studies included. A narrative review does not necessarily require bibliometric analysis, but it must explain how the literature was identified, selected, classified, and synthesized. If the authors intend to make broad claims about trends in emerging technologies, a more systematic or bibliometric analysis is needed. Otherwise, the claims should be narrowed. The exact five-year period should also be specified, and recent core evidence should be distinguished from earlier foundational literature retained for theoretical or historical purposes.

3. The manuscript still lacks a convincing structural hierarchy. Although Section 2 introduces a process from technological inputs to evaluation and feedback, the main sections continue to present technological infrastructure, analytical methods, design approaches, ecological concepts, decision models, and assessment tools at broadly parallel levels. The authors should clarify whether the organizing principle is technological type, functional role, stage of the urban-design process, or sustainability outcome, and then apply this principle consistently. Table 3 only maps objectives to sections and does not resolve the structural problem. A comparative synthesis should show the function, data requirements, scale, application stage, empirical evidence, maturity, risks, and limitations of each approach.

4. The basis of Table 1 remains inadequate. Calling it an “author-developed analytical synthesis” identifies its authorship but does not provide a theoretical or methodological basis. The authors should explain how the four categories were derived, why these categories were selected, and what common classification criterion they share. Knowledge-based city concerns knowledge and innovation, broadband city concerns communication infrastructure, ubiquitous city concerns pervasive computing, and eco-city concerns environmental objectives. These are overlapping and conceptually different dimensions. ICT should be defined as information and communication technology, and “high-capacity ICT” should be specified more clearly.

5. Table 1 and the reference list contain important citation errors. References 56 and 58 concern particle swarm optimization and pedestrian simulation, while References 59 to 61 also concern pedestrian modelling and do not support the corresponding smart-city categories. Reference 25 discusses Songdo rather than the listed Singapore case. References 46, 47, and 49 are bibliographically incomplete, and Reference 88 appears to duplicate Reference 54. The DeMo discussion also relies heavily on a short conference abstract. A complete citation audit is required to ensure that every category, case, and substantive claim is supported by directly relevant evidence.

6. The claimed critical synthesis remains incomplete. ISUQ is now acknowledged as a context-specific outcome-assessment example and is briefly compared with other systems, which is an improvement. However, it still receives disproportionate attention as a full section with a dedicated table and figure. Figures 1 to 4 remain mainly descriptive and add limited analytical value. Figure 4, in particular, does not clearly show urban design at the centre of six interdependent dimensions as claimed in its caption. The Discussion better distinguishes urban design from planning, geodesign, and transition governance, but the main conclusion that urban design acts as the mediating framework is still asserted more strongly than it is demonstrated through comparative evidence.

Overall, the manuscript has improved, but the review design, conceptual scope, structural logic, classification basis, and citation reliability require further major revision.

Author Response

Reviewer 3.1 — Scope and central question

Comment: “Emerging technologies” is undefined; established methods are conflated with emerging technologies; the Abstract, body, and Conclusions need one explicit research question.

Response: Agreed. The title has been narrowed to “Digital and Computational Methods for Sustainable Urban Transitions: A Critical Narrative Review through Urban Design.” The Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusions now use one explicit research question. The manuscript distinguishes genuinely emerging or rapidly evolving capabilities (e.g., generative AI, computer vision, operational urban digital twins, AI-enabled participatory interfaces) from established methods (GIS, BIM, AHP/ANP, genetic algorithms, parametric modelling, swarm/agent-based methods) whose contemporary relevance may lie in new integration, scale, data environments, or applications. “Emerging” is no longer used as a blanket descriptor for the full evidence base.

Reviewer 3.2 — Review method and evidence base

Comment: Section 2 lacks exact databases, dates, search strings, retrieved/screened/included counts, the exact five-year period, and a distinction between recent core evidence and foundational literature.

Response: Substantially agreed. Section 2 has been revised to identify Scopus and Google Scholar as the principal literature-search platforms and ResearchGate and Academia.edu as supplementary discovery and citation-tracing sources. The recent core evidence window is now defined as 1 January 2021–8 September 2026, with earlier works retained selectively as foundational literature. The revised Methods report the final search date, conceptual Boolean search string, eligibility and exclusion logic, functional classification procedure, and the distinction between recent core and foundational evidence. We also clarify an important limitation: because this study was conceived as a critical narrative review rather than a systematic review, numerical retrieval, deduplication, screening, exclusion, and inclusion counts were not prospectively recorded. We have not reconstructed or estimated those figures retrospectively. Instead, claims of comprehensiveness, prevalence, and field-wide trends have been narrowed accordingly. We believe this provides the greatest possible transparency without implying a systematic-review protocol that was not undertaken.

Reviewer 3.3 — Structural hierarchy

Comment: The organizing principle is unclear; Table 3 should compare function, data requirements, scale, application stage, evidence, maturity, risks, and limitations.

Response: Agreed. The manuscript now adopts one organizing principle consistently: functional stage in the urban-design process. Sections are explicitly grouped as Stage I—conceptual/technological foundations; Stage II—analysis/systems interpretation; Stage III—computational design support; Stage IV—decision-making/spatial intervention; and Stage V—outcome evaluation/feedback. Table 3 has been completely replaced by a comparative synthesis covering function, typical data/evidence, scale, process stage, empirical evidence/maturity, principal risks, and key limitations for ten reviewed approach families. The Discussion now uses this comparison as the evidential basis for its synthesis.

Reviewer 3.4 — Basis of Table 1

Comment: The four categories do not share a clear criterion; ICT and high-capacity ICT need definition.

Response: Agreed. Table 1 is no longer presented as a taxonomy of equivalent city types. Its common criterion is now explicit: the dominant locus through which urban intelligence or transition capacity is framed. The four historical emphases are knowledge production, network connectivity, pervasive/context-aware computation, and ecological performance. The text explains why these emphases were selected, acknowledges their overlap, defines information and communication technology (ICT), and specifies high-capacity ICT as high-bandwidth fixed/mobile networks and backbone infrastructure supporting data-intensive urban services.

Reviewer 3.5 — Citation errors and reference audit

Comment: Table 1 contains misassigned references; several references are incomplete; one duplicate exists; DeMo relies heavily on a conference abstract.

Response: Agreed. Table 1 citations have been reassigned so that each row is supported by directly relevant smart/sustainable-city literature rather than pedestrian/swarm references. The ubiquitous-city case is now Songdo, matching the cited evidence. The incomplete Tianjin genetic-algorithm, Dubai/UAE genetic-algorithm, and participatory-GenAI entries have been completed with author metadata, and the duplicated Savvides thermal-comfort entry has been removed. The DeMo text continues to identify the framework as an emerging applied example with a limited publication base and is explicitly placed alongside established green-infrastructure and nature-based-solution literature rather than treated as a validated framework. A final line-by-line reference-number audit should be run after the author confirms the search-log fields, because any newly added search references may change numbering.

Reviewer 3.6 — Critical synthesis, ISUQ, figures, and mediating claim

Comment: ISUQ remains disproportionate; Figures 1–4 are descriptive; Figure 4 does not demonstrate its caption; urban design as mediator is asserted more strongly than demonstrated.

Response: Agreed in substance. ISUQ has been reframed and shortened as one context-specific Stage V outcome-evaluation example rather than the culmination of the review. Figure 4 has been removed because its diagram did not adequately demonstrate the claimed six-way interdependence. Table 3 now provides the principal comparative synthesis. The Discussion has been rewritten around comparative asymmetries: sensing is strong in observation but weak in normative choice; digital twins integrate data but face interoperability and maturity limits; generative/parametric methods expand alternatives but encode assumptions; multi-criteria methods expose trade-offs but depend on criteria and representation; ecological and neighborhood tools primarily define/evaluate outcomes. On this basis, the conclusion is narrowed: urban design is “one mediating spatial practice” within wider planning, governance, socio-technical, and socio-ecological processes, not an overarching framework that subsumes them.