Supplementary materials of "Mapping Digital Solutions for Multi-Scale Built Environment Observation: A Cluster-Based Systematic Review"

PRISMA 2020 Checklist Section and Topic Item # Checklist item Location where item is reported TITLE Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review. Title page – identified as “A Cluster-Based Systematic Review.” ABSTRACT Abstract 2 See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist. Structured abstract (Purpose, Methods, Results, Conclusions) aligned with PRISMA for Abstracts. INTRODUCTION Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge. Section 1.1 General Background – establishes the context of digital transition and need for integrated synthesis; Section 1.2 Motivation – situates the topic within EU policy and research trajectories; Section 1.3 Research Outline – explicitly relates this review to prior SLRs and clusteranalysis approaches, identifying the research gap. Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses. Section 1.3 Research Outline and Objectives – states the study aim and three research questions (RQ1–RQ3) guiding the systematic review. METHODS Eligibility criteria 5 Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses. Section 2.2 Data Selection, Tables 3 and 4 – defines inclusion/exclusion criteria (topic relevance, research setting, methodological rigor), as well as Key performance indicators (KPIs) Information sources 6 Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted. Section 2.1 Data Search – primary database: Scopus; verification via Web of Science and IEEE Xplore; last search 16 April 2025. Search strategy 7 Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used. Section 2.1 Data Search, Table 1 – full Boolean queries combining built-environment and digital-method terms; filters: English language, 2013–2025 timespan, relevant subject areas. Selection process 8 Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. Section 2.2 Data Selection – multi-stage screening (title + abstract + full-text) by three researchers independently; agreement validated (Cohen’s κ = 0.86). Data collection process 9 Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. Section 2.3 Data Clustering and Co-occurrence – extraction of 30 features by three researchers; iterative validation and cross-checking. Data items 10a List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect. Sections 2.3–2.4, Appendices B and C – 30 analytical features and five comparative dimensions analyzed across clusters. 10b List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g. participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information. Section 2.4 Comparative and Interdependency Analysis – variables include domain of application, scale, and interaction type. PRISMA 2020 Checklist Section and Topic Item # Checklist item Location where item is reported Study risk of bias assessment 11 Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. Not applicable – no meta-analysis; reliability ensured through inter-coder agreement (Cohen’s κ = 0.86). Effect measures 12 Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g. risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results. Not applicable – qualitative and bibliometric methods, no effect sizes calculated. Synthesis methods 13a Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g. tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)). Sections 2.3–2.4 – mixed quali-quanti design using VOSviewer (co-occurrence mapping, LinLog layout) presented in Figure 2, followed by comparative and interdependency analysis presented in Table 6 and Table 7. 13b Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions. 13c Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses. 13d Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used. 13e Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g. subgroup analysis, meta-regression). 13f Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results. Reporting bias assessment 14 Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases). Not applicable – all eligible studies included; no reporting bias assessed. Certainty assessment 15 Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome. Section 4 Discussion – addresses robustness and limitations qualitatively. RESULTS Study selection 16a Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram. Section 2.2, Figure 1 (flow diagram) – screening progress 5261 → 2124 → 507 → 29 final studies. 16b Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded. Section 2.2 – conceptual and non-methodological papers excluded after full-text review. Study characteristics 17 Cite each included study and present its characteristics. Appendix A – table of 29 included studies and their key attributes. Risk of bias in studies 18 Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study. Table 4 – methodological rigor criteria used to mitigate bias in study selection. Results of individual studies 19 For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots. Table 5 and Appendix C – feature occurrence values and cluster membership for each study. Results of syntheses 20a For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies. Section 3 Results (3.1–3.4) – four clusters described; Section 4 Discussion – comparative and interdependency findings summarized. 20b Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect. PRISMA 2020 Checklist Section and Topic Item # Checklist item Location where item is reported 20c Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results. 20d Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results. Reporting biases 21 Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed. Not applicable – no selective reporting detected. Certainty of evidence 22 Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed. Section 5 Conclusions – overall synthesis and confidence in findings discussed. DISCUSSION Discussion 23a Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. Section 4 Discussion – interprets results in relation to existing literature and cross-domain frameworks. 23b Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review. Section 4.3 Limitations and Future Research Directions – addresses database coverage and methodological constraints. 23c Discuss any limitations of the review processes used. Section 4.3 – notes limitations of scope; no meta-analysis conducted. 23d Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research. Section 5 Conclusions – outlines implications for digital platform development and urban policy integration. OTHER INFORMATION Registration and protocol 24a Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered. The review is registered in the INPLASY International Platform of Registered Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses, under the registration number INPLASY2025110001. 24b Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared. The full review protocol can be accessed via the INPLASY registry record at the link: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-202511-0001/. No separate protocol was published elsewhere. 24c Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol. No amendments have been made to the information provided at registration. The current submission fully corresponds to the registered INPLASY protocol (INPLASY2025110001). Support 25 Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review. Funded by Science Fund of Serbia, PRISMA Programme (Project No. 7408 – SPATTERN). The Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, as well as in the decision to publish the results. Competing interests 26 Declare any competing interests of review authors. Authors declare no conflict of interest. Availability of data, code and other materials 27 Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review. Appendices A–C provide supplementary materials (list of studies, feature definitions, and occurrence tables). PRISMA 2020 Checklist From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71