Computational Optimisation of Urban Design Models: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors dedicated the research to Computational Optimisation of Urban Design Models: A Systematic Literature Review. The methodology, review and systematic research are well prepared. The logistics if the paper are well presented. Possibly more data as to the predicted future developments will be of use. Additionally, please expand the sentence in l. 680-681: "The future directions described for UDO research in this review would contribute to better support evidence-based city planning both for planning experts as well a
broader subset of city stakeholders including policy makers, designers, and residents". As the Reviewer finds that this particular conclusion - even though one of the most important ones has not been well emphasised in the authors' analysis. Maybe, such disscussion would prove to be of much more interest and use to readers than analysis of the development itself.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this paper presents a logical and well-organized investigation with thorough research. However, several areas could be improved to enhance its impact. The abstract could provide more specificity and detail. The methodology section would benefit from clearer inclusion/exclusion criteria, sources, and screening processes. Additional examples and detailed results in the results and discussion section would strengthen the paper. The conclusions section could be clearer on future directions. Addressing certain aspects of the PRISMA checklist, such as detailed reporting of the screening process, will further improve the study. Overall, this work demonstrates significant promise and professionalism.

 

Abstract:

 

Line 13-15: Specify the distinct characteristics of urban design optimization that pose challenges for study.

 

Introduction:

 

Provide context for the statement about urban population growth by including the current urban population figure (Line 27).

 

Specify the risks mentioned in Line 35 for clarity.

 

Provide more detail on how optimization frameworks organize data flow across models, solvers, and interfaces (Line 56-60).

 

Methodology:

 

Provide detailed information on who performed the abstract and full-body screenings and the process for resolving discrepancies (Lines 107-111).

 

Clearly state the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the methodology (Lines 113-115). Revise to: "Articles were included if they applied optimization to spatial urban models and had clear applications to urban planning or design. Non-spatial models and papers focused solely on urban policy or smaller-scale subsystems were excluded."

 

Results and Discussion:

 

Emphasize the importance of addressing multiple goals in UDO research, not just single goals (Lines 160-161).

 

Discuss why single-goal UDO research is prevalent and its implications for urban planning practice (Line 169-171).

 

Future Directions:

 

Provide specific examples of advanced AI technologies or methods that could be beneficial for UDO (Line 535).

 

Conclusions:

 

Clarify the description of future development, such as multi-goal, multi-model UDO methods, and frameworks for scenario building and backcasting (Line 676-678). Consider revising to: "Future development of multi-goal, multi-model UDO methods was discussed alongside frameworks for scenario building and backcasting."

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a well-structured review of an important and timely research direction. Below are my comments:

 

As claimed, the authors' use of only two search terms ("urban" and "optimization") without synonyms or related terms is unusually limited. Typically, researchers employ a more comprehensive set of keywords to ensure thorough coverage of the field. 

 

The criteria for journal selection lack clear justification. While Sustainable Cities and Society is included, other prominent journals in the field such as Landscape and Urban Planning, Cities, Habitat International, and Urban Design International are notably absent. A rationale for this selection process would strengthen the paper's methodology.

 

Recent advancements in systematic reviews often incorporate machine learning tools or AI assistance in the screening process. Would be great to hear why the authors' decided not to utilize these methods. Additionally, it would be beneficial to know how many authors were involved in the screening process to address potential subjectivity concerns.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf