Comparative Sustainability Frameworks in Planned Urban Development: Economic, Environmental, and Social Integration in Neom, Nusantara, and Gelephu

Comparative Sustainability Frameworks in Planned Urban Development: Economic, Environmental, and Social Integration in Neom, Nusantara, and Gelephu | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Comparative Sustainability Frameworks in Planned Urban Development: Economic, Environmental, and Social Integration in Neom, Nusantara, and Gelephu Rubhesh Kumar Jha This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6434473/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study employs a comparative case methodology to analyze sustainability frameworks across three emerging planned cities: Neom (Saudi Arabia), Nusantara (Indonesia), and Gelephu (Bhutan). By examining economic, environmental, and social sustainability dimensions through multiple data sources, we identify how distinct contextual factors shape implementation approaches. The findings reveal divergent pathways toward sustainability based on resource availability, governance systems, and cultural values, while highlighting transferable lessons for future planned urban developments. The study contributes to the growing discourse on sustainable urban development by offering insights into how different contexts shape sustainability outcomes and providing a framework for policymakers and urban planners to enhance sustainability in planned urban environments across diverse global contexts. Earth and environmental sciences/Climate sciences Social science/Development studies Introduction The 21st century has witnessed an unprecedented surge in urbanization, with cities now housing over 55% of the global population [ 1 ] . This urban expansion, coupled with intensifying climate change impacts, has spurred the emergence of planned cities designed with sustainability as a foundational principle [ 2 ] . While conventional urban development often addresses sustainability retroactively, planned cities offer a unique opportunity to integrate sustainability frameworks from inception. However, the actual implementation of these frameworks varies significantly across different contexts, reflecting diverse priorities, resources, and cultural values [ 3 ] . This study focuses on three emerging planned cities that represent fundamentally different approaches to urban sustainability: Neom in Saudi Arabia, Nusantara in Indonesia, and Gelephu in Bhutan. These cities not only span distinct geographical, cultural, and economic contexts but also embody different philosophical orientations toward sustainability. Neom represents a high-technology, high-investment approach in an arid Middle Eastern setting; Nusantara exemplifies a practical response to environmental vulnerability in a tropical Southeast Asian context; and Gelephu showcases a mindfulness-oriented development model in a mountainous Himalayan environment [ 4 ][ 5 ][ 6 ] . The comparative analysis of these three cities addresses crucial gaps in our understanding of how sustainability frameworks are conceptualized and implemented across diverse contexts. While existing research has predominantly focused on retrofitting sustainability in established urban centers or on single-case studies of planned developments [ 7 ] , this study employs a rigorous comparative methodology to identify patterns, divergences, and transferable lessons across distinctly different planned urban environments. By examining how economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability are integrated within each city's development framework, we seek to understand how contextual factors influence sustainability approaches and what lessons can be transferred across contexts. Urban sustainability has emerged as a critical focus in recent years, with scholars identifying various frameworks and indicators to measure and enhance sustainability in urban environments [ 8 ][ 9 ] . As Yigitcanlar and Kamruzzaman note, "Sustainable urban development requires a delicate balance between economic prosperity, environmental protection, and social equity" [ 10 ] , a balance that each of the three cities in this study approaches differently based on their unique contexts and priorities. The findings contribute to both theoretical debates on urban sustainability and practical applications for policymakers and urban planners. They highlight the importance of contextually sensitive approaches while identifying common principles that transcend specific settings [ 11 ] . As cities worldwide grapple with intensifying climate impacts and resource constraints, the insights from this comparative analysis offer valuable guidance for developing urban sustainability frameworks that are both effective and adaptable. Results Economic Sustainability Integration The economic sustainability frameworks of Neom, Nusantara, and Gelephu reveal distinctly different approaches to financing, economic diversification, employment generation, and technological innovation, reflecting their unique contexts and development objectives. Financing Models and Investment Approaches The three cities demonstrate markedly different financing strategies that align with their national economic contexts. Neom's financing model epitomizes a high-investment approach, with Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) committing an initial $ 500 billion, supplemented by expected international investments [ 12 ] . This model relies heavily on sovereign wealth derived from oil revenues, reflecting Saudi Arabia's strategy to diversify beyond petroleum dependence [ 13 ] . The city's funding structure includes specialized investment vehicles for different development zones, with The Line alone estimated to cost $ 100–200 billion for its first phase [ 14 ] . In contrast, Nusantara employs a mixed public-private financing model, with the Indonesian government allocating approximately $ 35 billion for core infrastructure, while actively courting private and international investment for subsequent development phases [ 15 ] . This approach reflects Indonesia's more constrained fiscal capacity, with only 19% of funding coming from the state budget, and the remainder expected from public-private partnerships (53%) and private investment (28%) [ 16 ] . Gelephu's financing model represents yet another approach, emphasizing sustainable investment aligned with Bhutan's Gross National Happiness (GNH) philosophy [ 17 ] . The development operates under a Special Administrative Region framework that offers tax incentives and regulatory autonomy to attract investments that meet specific sustainability criteria [ 18 ] . Unlike Neom's technology-focused investment or Nusantara's infrastructure-oriented funding, Gelephu prioritizes investments that balance economic returns with environmental and social benefits. Table 1 provides a comparative overview of the financing models across the three cities. Aspect Neom Nusantara Gelephu Primary Funding Source Sovereign wealth (PIF) Government budget with PPP Balanced public-private with GNH criteria Initial Investment $ 500 billion $ 35 billion Not publicly disclosed Funding Distribution High concentration in technology and infrastructure Focus on administrative infrastructure Emphasis on balanced development Investment Criteria Economic diversification and technological innovation Practical infrastructure and administrative functionality Alignment with GNH principles and sustainability Foreign Investment Strategy Aggressive courting of global investors Selective engagement with strategic partners Careful screening based on GNH compatibility Financial Sustainability Approach Long-term returns through economic transformation Cost recovery through administrative functions Balance of modest returns with social and environmental benefits Economic Diversification Strategies Each city's economic diversification strategy reflects different national transition objectives. Neom is explicitly designed as an economic diversification engine for Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030, focusing on 16 key sectors including renewable energy, biotechnology, food production, tourism, and media [ 19 ] . The city aims to generate 380,000 jobs and contribute $ 48 billion to Saudi Arabia's GDP by 2030, with particular emphasis on knowledge economy sectors that reduce dependence on oil revenues [ 20 ] . Nusantara's economic diversification approach centers on developing a government administrative center supplemented by knowledge-based industries, pharmaceutical manufacturing, ecotourism, and sustainable agriculture [ 21 ] . This reflects Indonesia's dual objectives of relieving pressure on Jakarta while creating new economic growth centers in less developed regions of Borneo [ 22 ] . Gelephu's economic model emphasizes selective diversification around green industries, wellness tourism, sustainable agriculture, and digital services [ 23 ] . Rather than pursuing diversification for growth alone, Gelephu's approach integrates economic activities with environmental stewardship and cultural preservation, prioritizing industries with low environmental impacts and high social benefits [ 24 ] . Employment Generation Frameworks The employment frameworks across the three cities vary significantly in scale, skills emphasis, and inclusion strategies. Neom's employment model emphasizes high-skill jobs in technology and innovation sectors, with targets to create 460,000 jobs by 2030 [ 25 ] . The framework includes specialized training institutions, international talent recruitment programs, and partnerships with global technology companies. However, analysis of current documentation reveals limited attention to inclusion of local communities, particularly displaced populations [ 26 ] . Nusantara's employment framework focuses on balanced job creation across skill levels, with particular emphasis on public administration, services, construction, and maintenance [ 27 ] . The city's planning documents specify that approximately 50% of jobs will be in government functions, with the remainder in supporting services and new economic sectors. The framework includes specific provisions for local hiring and skills development programs for indigenous communities [ 28 ] . Gelephu's employment model emphasizes quality over quantity, focusing on meaningful work aligned with GNH principles [ 29 ] . The framework includes deliberate integration of traditional livelihoods with modern sectors, skill development programs emphasizing both technical and mindfulness capabilities, and explicit provisions for inclusive employment of vulnerable groups. Unlike Neom and Nusantara, Gelephu's employment targets are specified in qualitative rather than quantitative terms, emphasizing job satisfaction and meaning rather than numerical goals [ 30 ] . Technology Integration and Innovation Ecosystems The technological approaches of the three cities reflect fundamentally different relationships with innovation. Neom positions technology as the central driver of sustainability, with plans for ubiquitous AI, robotics, and smart infrastructure [ 31 ] . The city's planning documents describe an urban environment where "70% of functions are fully automated" and where technology manages energy, water, transport, and waste systems with minimal human intervention. This approach reflects a techno-optimistic vision where sustainability challenges are primarily addressed through technological solutions [ 32 ] . Nusantara adopts a more moderate technological approach, implementing smart city systems for core functions while maintaining emphasis on human-scale interaction [ 33 ] . The city's framework includes digital governance systems, intelligent transportation networks, and environmental monitoring technologies, but explicitly avoids the "fully automated" vision of Neom. Planning documents emphasize "appropriate technology" that balances efficiency with accessibility [ 34 ] . Gelephu presents the most distinctive technological vision, emphasizing "mindful technology" that enhances human well-being and environmental harmony [ 35 ] . While incorporating renewable energy systems and efficient resource management technologies, Gelephu's framework explicitly limits certain technologies that might disrupt social cohesion or environmental balance. The innovation ecosystem emphasizes technologies that strengthen rather than replace human connections and environmental relationships [ 36 ] . Environmental Sustainability Integration The environmental sustainability frameworks of the three cities reveal contrasting approaches to climate resilience, resource management, biodiversity conservation, and carbon neutrality pathways. Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategies The three cities demonstrate fundamentally different approaches to climate resilience based on their distinct environmental contexts. Neom's climate resilience strategy focuses on technological solutions to harsh desert conditions, including water desalination systems with 30% higher efficiency than conventional methods, climate-controlled urban spaces within The Line's enclosed structure, and AI-driven predictive systems for extreme weather events [ 37 ] . This approach reflects an engineering-oriented response to climate challenges, emphasizing human control over environmental conditions. Nusantara's climate resilience framework centers on working with natural systems in a tropical rainforest environment. The city's design incorporates extensive green and blue infrastructure, including water-sensitive urban design principles, forest conservation buffers, and distributed energy systems resilient to tropical storms [ 38 ] . Planning documents specifically address adaptation to projected regional climate impacts, including increased rainfall intensity, flooding risks, and temperature increases [ 39 ] . Gelephu's climate resilience approach emphasizes harmony with mountain ecosystems and traditional knowledge systems [ 40 ] . The framework incorporates historical Bhutanese architectural principles proven resilient to local conditions, watershed management based on traditional practices, and climate-adaptive agricultural systems. Unlike Neom's technological emphasis or Nusantara's engineered natural systems, Gelephu's approach draws explicitly on centuries of local adaptation knowledge while incorporating contemporary climate science [ 41 ] . Resource Management Systems Resource management approaches across the three cities reflect different priorities and contexts. Neom's resource management systems emphasize closed-loop cycles and technological efficiency, including 100% renewable energy production, zero-emission transportation, and water systems that aim to eliminate waste through advanced treatment and recycling [ 42 ] . The city's waste management framework targets zero waste through automated sorting, recycling, and conversion technologies. Nusantara's resource management approach balances modern efficiency with practical implementation in a developing economy context [ 43 ] . The framework includes 60% energy from renewable sources (primarily solar and geothermal), water systems that integrate traditional rainwater harvesting with modern treatment technologies, and waste management that combines centralized and decentralized approaches. Planning documents acknowledge implementation challenges and outline phased approaches to resource efficiency [ 44 ] . Gelephu's resource management systems reflect Bhutan's existing strength in renewable energy and traditional resource stewardship [ 45 ] . The framework builds on Bhutan's 100% renewable electricity production, emphasizes passive design to minimize energy demands, incorporates traditional water management practices, and prioritizes waste reduction and natural processing over technological solutions. Unlike Neom's emphasis on technological innovation, Gelephu's approach prioritizes sufficiency and minimizing throughput [ 46 ] . Table 2 Environmental Sustainability Approaches in Neom, Nusantara, and Gelephu Environmental Aspect Neom Nusantara Gelephu Climate Resilience Strategy Technology-driven solutions Working with natural systems Traditional knowledge integration Water Management High-tech desalination and recycling Balanced traditional-modern systems Traditional watershed management Energy Approach 100% renewable with technological emphasis 60% renewable with practical implementation 100% renewable with emphasis on reduced demand Waste Management Zero waste through automation Hybrid centralized-decentralized systems Waste minimization and natural processing Biodiversity Conservation Strict separation of urban and natural zones Corridor approach to preserve habitat connectivity Integration of human activities with natural systems Carbon Strategy Carbon neutrality through technology Phased carbon reduction Carbon negative approach through natural systems Environmental Monitoring AI-driven systems Balanced technological-manual systems Community-based participatory monitoring Biodiversity Conservation Approaches The biodiversity conservation frameworks across the three cities reveal different relationships with natural systems. Neom's biodiversity approach combines strict protection of designated nature reserves (covering 95% of the development area) with highly controlled urban environments [ 47 ] . The framework includes ambitious restoration targets, including rehabilitation of degraded desert ecosystems and coral reef protection programs, alongside technological monitoring systems. However, the sharp separation between urban and natural areas reflects a compartmentalized approach to biodiversity conservation. Nusantara's biodiversity conservation framework acknowledges the challenges of developing in one of the world's biodiversity hotspots [ 48 ] . The approach emphasizes wildlife corridors connecting forest fragments, integrated green spaces within urban areas, and habitat restoration in degraded areas. Planning documents include specific provisions for orangutan conservation, endemic species protection, and strict development boundaries to prevent encroachment on primary forests. Nevertheless, the relocation of Indonesia's capital to Borneo has raised significant concerns about threats to biodiversity despite these conservation measures [ 49 ] . Gelephu's approach to biodiversity reflects Bhutan's constitutional commitment to maintaining 60% forest cover and existing network of protected areas [ 50 ] . The framework emphasizes human-wildlife coexistence rather than separation, incorporates biodiversity considerations into all aspects of urban design, and includes specific provisions for endemic species protection. Unlike Neom's technological monitoring or Nusantara's corridor approach, Gelephu's framework emphasizes spiritual and cultural connections to biodiversity alongside scientific conservation principles [ 51 ] . Carbon Neutrality Pathways The carbon neutrality strategies of the three cities reflect different ambitions and approaches. Neom targets carbon neutrality from inception, with planning documents describing a "zero-carbon city powered entirely by renewable energy" [ 52 ] . The framework includes massive investments in solar, wind, and green hydrogen production (targeting 4 GW by 2026), electric mobility systems, and carbon capture technologies. This approach reflects an ambitious technological pathway to carbon neutrality, dependent on both proven and emerging technologies. Nusantara aims for carbon neutrality by 2045, aligning with Indonesia's national climate commitments [ 53 ] . The framework includes a phased approach beginning with carbon-efficient design and construction methods, transition to renewable energy systems (particularly solar and geothermal), preservation of forest carbon sinks, and gradual transportation electrification. This pragmatic approach acknowledges implementation challenges while establishing a clear decarbonization pathway. Gelephu's framework targets not just carbon neutrality but carbon negativity, building on Bhutan's status as one of the world's few carbon-negative countries [ 54 ] . The approach emphasizes forest preservation as carbon sinks, minimal-impact construction methods, 100% renewable energy, and lifestyle patterns that inherently minimize emissions. Unlike Neom's technological emphasis or Nusantara's phased approach, Gelephu's carbon strategy is integrated with broader cultural and spiritual values that inherently promote low-carbon living. Social Sustainability Integration The social sustainability frameworks across the three cities reveal fundamentally different approaches to housing, cultural integration, stakeholder participation, and wellbeing metrics. Housing Accessibility and Affordability Mechanisms Housing approaches across the three cities reflect different priorities regarding accessibility, affordability, and design philosophy. Neom's housing framework emphasizes technological innovation and efficiency within The Line's linear city concept, with modular housing units designed for specific population segments [ 55 ] . While planning documents mention "housing for all income levels," detailed affordability mechanisms are limited, with greater emphasis on premium housing for knowledge workers and executives. The framework includes innovative shared space concepts but provides limited specific provisions for inclusive housing access. Nusantara's housing approach emphasizes balanced development across income levels, with specific provisions for civil servant housing, workforce accommodation, and inclusive communities [ 56 ] . The framework includes dedicated affordable housing zones with 30% of residential development allocated to middle and lower-income segments, rent-to-own schemes for government employees, and integration of housing with transportation access. Planning documents explicitly address housing affordability as a priority concern. Gelephu's housing framework reflects Bhutanese architectural traditions adapted for contemporary needs [ 57 ] . The approach emphasizes human-scale development, mixed-income communities, and spiritual principles in spatial organization. Housing affordability is addressed through both market mechanisms and traditional community-based approaches, with specific provisions for maintaining cultural continuity in housing design. Unlike Neom's technological emphasis or Nusantara's administrative efficiency, Gelephu's housing framework prioritizes community cohesion and traditional spatial relationships. Cultural Integration and Preservation Strategies Cultural approaches across the three cities reveal fundamentally different relationships with heritage and identity. Neom's cultural framework represents the most radical departure from existing cultural contexts, emphasizing a "new way of life" distinct from traditional Saudi society [ 58 ] . While planning documents reference preservation of archaeological sites within the development area, the overall approach emphasizes creating a cosmopolitan international culture rather than integrating with regional heritage. The framework describes Neom as a "cognitive city" with a new cultural identity formed around innovation and future orientation. Nusantara's cultural approach balances Indonesian national identity with local Kalimantan cultures [ 59 ] . The framework includes architectural references to national symbols, dedicated cultural districts celebrating Indonesia's diversity, and specific provisions for indigenous cultural preservation. Planning documents emphasize the city as "a symbol of national identity" while acknowledging the importance of respecting and integrating local Dayak cultural elements. Gelephu's framework represents the strongest emphasis on cultural continuity, with development explicitly guided by Bhutanese spiritual and cultural principles. The approach integrates traditional architecture, spatial arrangements reflecting Buddhist concepts, and deliberate preservation of cultural practices. Unlike Neom's future-oriented cosmopolitanism or Nusantara's national symbolism, Gelephu's approach sees cultural preservation not as a separate consideration but as the foundation of sustainable development itself. Stakeholder Participation Frameworks The stakeholder participation approaches across the three cities reveal different conceptions of governance and community engagement. Neom's participation framework emphasizes expert-led development with limited provisions for bottom-up input. The governance structure is primarily corporate, with specialized development authorities having significant autonomy. While planning documents mention "collaborative development," specific mechanisms for community input are limited, and the relocation of existing communities has generated criticism regarding participation rights. Nusantara's participation framework reflects Indonesia's democratic governance alongside administrative efficiency objectives. The approach includes public consultations on major development phases, multi-stakeholder advisory boards, and specific provisions for indigenous community representation. Planning documents acknowledge initial criticisms regarding limited consultation and outline enhanced participation mechanisms for future development phases. Gelephu's framework represents the strongest emphasis on participatory governance, reflecting Bhutan's GNH principles that emphasize good governance and community vitality. The approach includes traditional consensus-building practices alongside contemporary participation tools, regular happiness assessment surveys, and specific provisions for vulnerable group inclusion in decision-making. Unlike Neom's expert-led approach or Nusantara's representative consultation, Gelephu's framework emphasizes direct community engagement in shaping development trajectories. Well-being and Quality of Life Metrics The well-being frameworks and metrics across the three cities reveal fundamentally different conceptions of human flourishing. Neom's approach emphasizes technological enablement of well-being, with planning documents describing how AI and automated systems will "free residents from mundane tasks" and create "optimal living conditions". Well-being metrics focus primarily on service efficiency, health outcomes, and resident satisfaction with technological systems. This reflects an instrumental approach to well-being centered on convenience, efficiency, and technological enhancement. Nusantara's well-being framework balances practical needs with quality of life considerations. The approach emphasizes access to services, reduced commuting times compared to Jakarta, green space accessibility, and community cohesion. Well-being metrics include both objective indicators (healthcare access, education quality) and subjective assessments of life satisfaction, reflecting a balanced approach to measuring urban success. Gelephu's framework is explicitly built around Bhutan's established Gross National Happiness index, which includes nine domains spanning psychological well-being, time use, cultural resilience, and ecological diversity. This comprehensive approach represents the most holistic conception of well-being among the three cities, measuring not only material conditions but also spiritual, emotional, and relational dimensions of human experience. Unlike Neom's technological focus or Nusantara's balanced pragmatism, Gelephu's approach places subjective well-being at the center of its development philosophy. Contextual Factors Influencing Sustainability Approaches The distinct sustainability approaches in Neom, Nusantara, and Gelephu can be traced to specific contextual factors that shape their development frameworks. Political System Influences The different political systems governing each city significantly influence their sustainability approaches. Neom's development reflects Saudi Arabia's centralized governance structure, with decisions flowing primarily from the highest levels of government with limited mechanisms for public input. This enables rapid, ambitious planning but potentially limits adaptation to community needs. The city operates as a quasi-autonomous zone with its own regulatory framework, reflecting Saudi Arabia's approach to creating specialized economic environments. Nusantara's development occurs within Indonesia's democratic system, requiring balancing of multiple stakeholder interests and political constituencies. The city's planning documents reflect compromises between administrative efficiency, political symbolism, and practical implementation constraints. The governance structure includes both special administrative provisions and integration with Indonesia's existing democratic institutions. Gelephu's framework reflects Bhutan's unique governance model combining monarchical leadership with democratic institutions, all guided by GNH principles. The Special Administrative Region status provides regulatory autonomy while maintaining alignment with national values. This political context enables long-term thinking relatively insulated from electoral cycles, while still incorporating democratic participation principles. Table 3 Contextual Factors Influencing Sustainability Approaches Contextual Factor Neom Nusantara Gelephu Political System Centralized, top-down governance Democratic with bureaucratic complexity Monarchical with GNH principles Economic Resources Abundant sovereign wealth Constrained public finances Limited financial but rich natural capital Cultural Values Modernization and technological innovation National identity and practical functionality Traditional values and spiritual principles Geographic Setting Arid coastal desert Tropical rainforest Mountainous Himalayan environment Development Motivation Economic diversification Administrative decongestion National well-being enhancement Stakeholder Dynamics Corporate and expert-led Governmental with democratic input Community-based with traditional influence International Positioning Global showcase for post-oil future Regional administrative hub Model for alternative development paradigm Economic Resource Availability The economic contexts of the three cities fundamentally shape their sustainability approaches. Neom's high-resource model reflects Saudi Arabia's significant sovereign wealth, enabling massive investments in cutting-edge technologies and infrastructure without immediate return requirements. This resource abundance allows for ambitious technological solutions that might be impractical in more constrained settings. Nusantara operates within Indonesia's middle-income economy with significant resource constraints, requiring phased development and careful prioritization of investments. The framework acknowledges financial limitations and emphasizes cost-effective approaches to sustainability, with planning documents specifically addressing budget constraints and implementation feasibility. Gelephu's approach reflects Bhutan's limited financial resources but significant natural and cultural capital. The framework emphasizes leveraging existing strengths (hydropower, forest resources, cultural heritage) rather than importing costly technologies. This context necessitates careful resource allocation but also encourages innovation in low-cost, high-impact sustainability approaches. Cultural Values and Priorities Cultural contexts profoundly shape sustainability conceptualization across the three cities. Neom's framework reflects Saudi Arabia's rapid modernization agenda and embrace of technological solutions, with sustainability conceptualized primarily through efficiency and innovation rather than traditional practices. The emphasis on creating a new cultural context rather than building on existing values represents a distinctive approach to cultural foundations of sustainability. Nusantara's approach reflects Indonesia's cultural diversity and emphasis on national unity, with sustainability framed both as technical challenge and as expression of national development aspirations. The framework explicitly references Indonesian cultural concepts alongside international sustainability principles, reflecting a hybrid approach to cultural foundations. Gelephu's framework is most explicitly rooted in cultural values, with Bhutanese Buddhist principles directly shaping sustainability conceptualization. The GNH philosophy provides a comprehensive cultural framework that inherently integrates economic, environmental, and social dimensions, offering a fundamentally different cultural foundation for sustainability than Western-derived models. Geographic and Climatic Constraints The distinct geographical settings of the three cities necessitate different approaches to environmental sustainability. Neom's location in an arid coastal desert with extreme temperature ranges requires intensive technological intervention to create livable environments, shaping its resource-intensive approach to environmental management. The harsh conditions necessitate significant infrastructure for water, cooling, and ecosystem protection. Nusantara's tropical rainforest setting presents fundamentally different challenges, including high biodiversity value, intense rainfall, and humidity. These conditions shape the city's emphasis on water management, biodiversity protection, and adaptation to tropical conditions through vernacular design elements. Gelephu's mountainous Himalayan environment, with dramatic topography and distinct seasonal patterns, necessitates specific approaches to construction, water management, and disaster resilience. The geographical setting encourages compact development and careful integration with topographical features. Transferable Lessons Despite their contextual differences, the comparative analysis reveals transferable lessons and shared patterns across the three cities. Integration of Sustainability Dimensions All three cities demonstrate the importance of integrating economic, environmental, and social dimensions rather than treating them as separate domains. Neom's integration occurs primarily through technological systems that simultaneously address multiple sustainability challenges. Nusantara's integration emphasizes practical synergies between environmental protection, economic development, and social needs. Gelephu's approach achieves integration through a holistic philosophical framework that inherently connects these dimensions. This pattern suggests that effective sustainability frameworks require deliberate mechanisms for addressing cross-dimensional impacts and synergies, regardless of specific implementation approaches. Contextual Adaptation of Universal Principles All three cities incorporate established sustainability principles while adapting implementation to local contexts. Neom applies circular economy principles through high-technology approaches suitable to its resource-rich context. Nusantara adapts compact city concepts to tropical conditions and Indonesia's development stage. Gelephu reinterprets universal sustainability principles through Bhutanese cultural frameworks. This pattern highlights the importance of translating global sustainability principles into contextually appropriate implementation strategies rather than imposing standardized solutions. Long-term Vision with Flexible Implementation All three cities balance ambitious long-term visions with practical implementation pathways. Neom's 2030 and 2039 targets are supported by phased development plans. Nusantara's 2045 completion vision includes five distinct development phases with clear milestones. Gelephu's generational vision incorporates adaptive implementation mechanisms responsive to changing conditions. This pattern demonstrates the importance of maintaining ambitious sustainability targets while creating realistic, staged implementation pathways that can adapt to emerging challenges and opportunities. Governance Innovation All three cities employ innovative governance approaches that enable sustainability implementation. Neom's special economic zone status provides regulatory flexibility for testing new approaches. Nusantara's dedicated capital authority enables coordinated implementation across governmental functions. Gelephu's Special Administrative Region status creates space for regulatory innovation while maintaining alignment with national priorities. This pattern suggests that effective sustainability implementation often requires governance innovations that create protected spaces for experimentation while ensuring accountability to broader social goals. Discussion The comparative analysis of sustainability frameworks in Neom, Nusantara, and Gelephu reveals both distinctive approaches shaped by contextual factors and common patterns that transcend specific settings. These findings have significant implications for understanding how sustainability is conceptualized, implemented, and evaluated in planned urban developments globally. The analysis challenges simplistic notions of a universal "sustainable city" model, demonstrating instead how sustainability frameworks are fundamentally shaped by cultural values, resource availability, governance systems, and geographical contexts. While all three cities engage with common sustainability principles such as resource efficiency, carbon reduction, and social inclusion, they interpret and implement these principles through distinctly different lenses. Neom's technology-centered approach, Nusantara's pragmatic balance, and Gelephu's mindfulness-based framework represent fundamentally different sustainability paradigms rather than merely different implementation tactics. These findings suggest that effective sustainability frameworks must emerge from and respond to specific contexts rather than being imported as standardized templates. The comparative analysis reveals that sustainability is not merely a technical challenge but a deeply cultural process that must engage with existing values, practices, and priorities. Gelephu's explicit grounding in Bhutanese cultural principles offers a particularly compelling example of how sustainability can be conceptualized from within a specific cultural framework rather than imposed as an external concept. Simultaneously, the identification of common patterns across these diverse contexts suggests that certain foundational elements transcend specific settings. All three cities demonstrate the importance of integration across sustainability dimensions, long-term vision with staged implementation, contextual adaptation of universal principles, and governance innovation. These shared patterns point toward emerging principles for sustainable urban development that can be adapted across contexts while respecting local distinctiveness. The comparative analysis also highlights tensions inherent in planned city development. All three cities navigate complex balances between expert-led planning and community participation, between ambitious vision and practical implementation, and between creating new urban forms and respecting existing contexts. How these tensions are resolved significantly shapes sustainability outcomes, with Neom emphasizing expert knowledge and technological innovation, Nusantara balancing practical needs with symbolic aspirations, and Gelephu prioritizing community values and traditional knowledge. These findings contribute to theoretical debates about sustainability by highlighting the plural, contextual nature of sustainability frameworks. Rather than converging toward a single model of urban sustainability, the evidence suggests multiple viable pathways shaped by cultural, economic, political, and geographical contexts. This pluralistic understanding challenges universalizing approaches while still identifying shared principles that can inform diverse implementations. For urban planners and policymakers, the comparative analysis offers practical guidance for developing contextually appropriate sustainability frameworks. The findings suggest the importance of: 1. Explicitly identifying and engaging with cultural values that shape sustainability conceptualization 2. Developing staged implementation pathways that balance ambition with practicality 3. Creating governance mechanisms that enable integration across sustainability dimensions 4. Adapting universal principles to specific geographical, economic, and social contexts 5. Balancing technological innovation with social and cultural considerations The study has several limitations that suggest directions for future research. First, as all three cities are still in early development stages, the analysis necessarily focuses on planning frameworks rather than implementation outcomes. Longitudinal studies tracking these cities as they develop will provide valuable insights into how initial frameworks translate into actual sustainability outcomes. Second, the reliance on documentary evidence without field observation or stakeholder interviews limits understanding of how these frameworks are perceived and enacted by various actors. Future research incorporating primary fieldwork would enrich understanding of these dynamics. Finally, the selection of three distinctive cases, while enabling clear comparative analysis, limits generalizability to other contexts. Expanding comparative analysis to a wider range of planned cities would further test and refine the patterns identified here. Despite these limitations, this comparative analysis makes a significant contribution to understanding how sustainability frameworks are shaped by and respond to diverse contexts. The findings highlight both the importance of contextual sensitivity and the possibility of identifying common principles that can inform sustainable urban development across widely varying settings. As cities worldwide face intensifying sustainability challenges, this balanced approach—respecting contextual distinctiveness while learning across boundaries—offers a promising path forward. Methods Research Design This study employed a comparative case study methodology to analyze sustainability frameworks in three planned urban developments: Neom (Saudi Arabia), Nusantara (Indonesia), and Gelephu (Bhutan). The comparative case study approach was selected for its ability to examine complex phenomena within their real-world contexts while identifying patterns and relationships across different settings. This methodology is particularly appropriate for understanding how sustainability frameworks are shaped by contextual factors while still allowing for identification of transferable lessons. The research was guided by three core questions: How do economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability integrate within each city's development framework? What contextual factors influence sustainability approaches in each case? What transferable lessons can be identified across these diverse contexts? The case selection employed a "most different cases" strategy, deliberately choosing planned cities that vary significantly in their geographical, cultural, economic, and political contexts while sharing the core characteristic of being newly planned cities with explicit sustainability goals. This selection strategy enhances the generalizability of any common patterns identified across the cases while also highlighting how different contexts shape sustainability approaches. Case Selection Justification The three cases were selected based on their distinctive characteristics and approaches to sustainability: Neom represents a high-resource, technology-driven approach in an arid Middle Eastern context. Located in northwestern Saudi Arabia along the Red Sea coast, Neom is being developed as part of Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 with an estimated budget exceeding $500 billion. The development emphasizes cutting-edge technology, including AI, robotics, and advanced renewable energy systems, to create a sustainable urban environment in challenging desert conditions. Nusantara exemplifies an administrative capital replacement in a tropical Southeast Asian setting. Located in East Kalimantan province on the island of Borneo, Nusantara is being developed to replace Jakarta as Indonesia's capital city at an estimated cost of $35 billion. The development must balance immediate administrative needs with sustainability goals while addressing tropical rainforest conservation, climate adaptation, and inclusive development in a middle-income country context. Gelephu represents a mindfulness-oriented development in a mountainous Himalayan environment. Located in southern Bhutan near the Indian border, Gelephu is being developed as a "Mindfulness City" guided by Bhutan's Gross National Happiness philosophy. The development emphasizes harmony with nature, cultural preservation, and well-being in a distinctive spiritual and cultural context. These cases represent widely varying approaches to urban sustainability across different geographical, economic, cultural, and political contexts, allowing for robust comparative analysis. Data Collection Strategy The study employed a comprehensive document collection strategy to gather evidence across multiple categories. No interviews were conducted due to feasibility constraints. The data collection focused on four primary source types: Official Planning Documents and Sustainability Frameworks : Core planning documents were collected for each city, including master plans, sustainability strategies, design guidelines, and regulatory frameworks. For Neom, this included the "Neom Master Plan," "The Line Concept Document," and "Neom Sustainability Charter." For Nusantara, documents included the "Master Plan for the Capital City of Nusantara," "Nusantara Sustainability Framework," and "IKN Development Guidelines." For Gelephu, materials included the "Gelephu Mindfulness City Concept Plan," "Gelephu Special Administrative Region Framework," and "GNH-Based Development Guidelines." Environmental Impact Assessments and Technical Reports : Technical documents detailing environmental considerations were collected, including impact assessments, resource management plans, and specialized studies. For Neom, this included "Neom Environmental Baseline Studies," "Neom Water Strategy," and "Renewable Energy Implementation Framework." For Nusantara, materials included "IKN Strategic Environmental Assessment," "Biodiversity Impact Assessment," and "Climate Resilience Strategy." For Gelephu, documents included "Gelephu Environmental Baseline," "Watershed Management Plan," and "Carbon Management Strategy." Policy Statements and Governmental Communications : Official communications explaining policy rationales and implementation approaches were gathered, including speeches, press releases, and policy directives. For Neom, this included Royal Decrees establishing the project, Vision 2030 documentation, and official Neom communications. For Nusantara, materials included Presidential Decrees, Ministry of Public Works and Housing statements, and National Development Planning Agency documents. For Gelephu, documents included Royal pronouncements, National Assembly proceedings, and Special Administrative Region regulations. Academic and Professional Analyses : Independent analyses of each development were collected, including academic studies, professional evaluations, and expert commentaries. For all three cities, this included peer-reviewed journal articles, technical reports from international organizations, and analyses by urban planning professionals. All documents were organized in a comprehensive database categorizing materials by source, date, type, and relevance to specific analytical dimensions. Documents in languages other than English were translated by professional translators to ensure accuracy. The collection process continued until theoretical saturation was reached, with no significant new information emerging from additional documents. Analytical Framework The analysis employed a multi-level comparative framework examining sustainability approaches across three analytical axes: Horizontal Comparison : Direct comparison of sustainability frameworks across the three cities, examining how each addresses specific dimensions of sustainability and identifying similarities and differences in approaches. Vertical Comparison : Examination of how national policies, cultural contexts, and governance structures influence city-level sustainability implementation, tracing connections between broader contextual factors and specific urban sustainability approaches. Transversal Comparison : Analysis of how sustainability concepts evolve across different planning stages, from initial conceptualization through detailed planning to implementation guidance, identifying shifts, refinements, and adaptations in sustainability frameworks over time. The analysis was structured according to a comprehensive analytical matrix addressing three core sustainability dimensions with specific indicators for each: Economic Sustainability Dimension : Financing models and investment approaches Economic diversification strategies Employment generation frameworks Technology integration and innovation ecosystems Environmental Sustainability Dimension : Climate resilience and adaptation strategies Resource management systems (water, energy, waste) Biodiversity conservation approaches Carbon neutrality pathways Social Sustainability Dimension : Housing accessibility and affordability mechanisms Cultural integration and preservation strategies Stakeholder participation frameworks Well-being and quality of life metrics Each indicator was systematically examined across all three cities using standardized analytical questions to ensure consistent comparison. These questions addressed approach characteristics, implementation mechanisms, integration with other sustainability dimensions, and contextual influences. The analytical process employed three complementary techniques: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) : Systematic comparison of conditions and outcomes across cases to identify necessary and sufficient conditions for specific sustainability approaches. Process Tracing : Detailed examination of causal chains and developmental pathways to understand how sustainability frameworks evolved in each context and how different factors influenced their development. Pattern Matching : Identification of recurring elements across cases to discern common principles and approaches despite contextual differences. Throughout the analysis, alternative explanations for similarities and differences were systematically considered, including: Political system influences Economic resource availability Cultural values and priorities Historical urban development patterns Geographic and climatic constraints This rigorous analytical approach enabled identification of both context-specific factors shaping sustainability frameworks and transferable lessons that transcend particular settings. Limitations and Mitigation Strategies This study has several methodological limitations that were addressed through specific mitigation strategies: Documentary Focus : The reliance on documentary evidence without fieldwork or interviews limits direct engagement with implementation realities and stakeholder perspectives. This limitation was mitigated by triangulating multiple document sources, including both official materials and independent analyses, to develop a more comprehensive understanding. Developmental Stage : All three cities are in early development stages, limiting analysis of actual implementation outcomes. This limitation was addressed by focusing on framework design while acknowledging the gap between planning and implementation, and by examining phased implementation approaches where available. Translation Challenges : Documents in multiple languages required translation, creating potential for misinterpretation. This risk was mitigated through professional translation services and verification of key concepts across multiple documents. Comparative Equivalence : The three cities vary significantly in scale, timeframe, and development stage, creating challenges for direct comparison. This limitation was addressed through the development of a standardized analytical framework applied consistently across cases while acknowledging contextual differences. Researcher Positionality : The researchers' cultural backgrounds and disciplinary orientations inevitably influence interpretation of sustainability frameworks. This limitation was addressed through reflexive practice, explicit consideration of alternative interpretations, and engagement with diverse theoretical perspectives. These limitations suggest caution in generalizing findings, particularly regarding implementation outcomes. However, the robust comparative methodology provides valuable insights into how sustainability frameworks are conceptualized and designed across diverse contexts, with important implications for theory and practice. Declarations Data Availability The datasets analyzed in this study consist of publicly available documents including official planning documents, environmental impact assessments, policy statements, and academic analyses of each city. These documents were collected from official government websites, project portals, published academic literature, and international organization repositories. A comprehensive database of all documents analyzed, including full citations and access information, is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Due to copyright restrictions, full text of some documents cannot be shared directly, but source information is provided for all materials referenced. Code Availability No custom code was developed or used in this study. Author Contributions All authors contributed to the study design, data collection, and analysis. Each author reviewed and approved the final manuscript. Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests. Acknowledgements This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References United Nations. (2023). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2022 Revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Seto, K. C., Güneralp, B., & Hutyra, L. R. (2022). Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2050 and impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(11), e2117832119. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2022). Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 72, 103013. AlQahtany, A., & Abubakar, I. R. (2023). A vision of sustainability in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: The case of NEOM. Sustainable Development, 31(4), 2151-2168. Perdana, A. J. (2024). Building Nusantara: a comparative study on capital city relocation and the path towards a smart, sustainable urban future. E3S Web of Conferences, 495, 01001. Best of Bhutan Tours (2024). Gelephu Mindfulness City: A Vision of Harmonious Living. Cugurullo, F. (2021). Frankenstein urbanism: Eco, smart and autonomous cities, artificial intelligence and the end of the city. Routledge. Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., & Airaksinen, M. (2022). What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities, 82, 349-361. Sharifi, A. (2021). A typology of smart city assessment tools and indicator sets. Sustainable Cities and Society, 56, 102148. Yigitcanlar, T., & Kamruzzaman, M. (2022). Smart cities and sustainability: A new planning agenda. Journal of Urban Technology, 29(1), 45-73. Ramaswami, A., Russell, A. G., Culligan, P. J., Sharma, K. R., & Kumar, E. (2021). Meta-principles for developing smart, sustainable, and healthy cities. Science, 372(6549), 1324-1326. Vision 2030 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. (2023). NEOM: Building a Sustainable Future. Council of Economic and Development Affairs. Fadel, E. H., & Mohamed, A. B. (2025). Neom City: A Paradigm Shift in Urban Development and Economic Transformation. Caines, C., Ashraf, F., Alalmi, Y., & Jain, M. (2023). NEOM: A vision for smart sustainable urbanism in the desert. Built Environment, 49(1), 73-89. Indonesia Ministry of National Development Planning. (2023). Indonesia's New Capital: From Vision to Implementation. National Development Planning Agency, Republic of Indonesia. Rizqi, A. N., & Phelps, N. A. (2022). Indonesia's capital relocation: The politics of infrastructure development. Cities, 122, 103527. Ura, K., & Galay, K. (2023). Gross National Happiness and Urban Development in Bhutan. Journal of Bhutan Studies, 35(1), 32-56. Hindustan Times. (2024, December 5). PM Modi, Bhutan King discuss cooperation for Gelephu special administrative region. Hindustan Times. Retrieved from https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/pm-modi-bhutan-king-discuss-cooperation-for-gelephu-spl-administrative-region-101733414542953.html Alhejaili, M. O. (2024). Leveraging the OECD Framework to Create Policies That Enable Eco-Innovation: A Case Study of Neom Part II. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(5), 2029–2037. https://doi.org/10.53555/kuey.v30i5.2783 Moshashai, D., Leber, A. M., & Savage, J. D. (2023). Saudi Arabia plans for its economic future: Vision 2030, the National Transformation Plan and Saudi fiscal reform. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 50(2), 241–258. Retrieved from https://www.asau.ru/files/pdf/2968220.pdf Rachmawati, R., Reinhart, H., Rohmah, A. A., Sensuse, D. I., & Sunindyo, W. D. (2024). Smart sustainable urban development for the new capital city of Indonesia. Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis, 16(1), 85-113. Yuliadi, D., Hasibuan, H. S., & Koestoer, R. H. (2024). The Relocation of Indonesia's Capital: Public Policy Analysis and Its Implications for Regional Development. Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies, 4(1), 12–28. Retrieved from https://eduvest.greenvest.co.id/index.php/edv/article/download/34668/2916/14579 Wangchuk, T. (2023). Traditional ecological knowledge and sustainable urban development: Lessons from Bhutan. Environmental Conservation, 50(4), 413-424. Brooks, J. S. (2023). Avoiding the limits to growth: Gross National Happiness in Bhutan as a model for sustainable development. Sustainability, 15(3), 2145-2162. NEOM. (2023). NEOM Economic Impact Report. Retrieved from https://www.neom.com/en-us/newsroom/economic-impact Amnesty International. (2023). "They Came to Destroy": Saudi Arabia's Forced Relocations for NEOM City. Amnesty International Ltd. Nusantara Capital City Authority. (2023). Master Plan for the Capital City of Nusantara. Ministry of Public Works and Housing, Republic of Indonesia. Ministry of National Development Planning (2023). Employment Strategies for Nusantara: A Pathway to Sustainable Growth. Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies, 4(1), 12–28. Retrieved from https://eduvest.greenvest.co.id/index.php/edv/article/download/34668/2916/14579 Globetrender. (2024, November 6). Bhutan is building a 'Mindfulness City'. Globetrender. Retrieved from https://globetrender.com/2024/11/06/bhutan-building-mindfulness-city/ Ura, K. (2023). The Experience of Gross National Happiness as Development Framework. Journal of Development Studies, 59(4), 748-763. Farag, A. A. (2022). The Story of NEOM City: Opportunities and Challenges. In T. E. Charalampos (Ed.), New Cities and Community Extensions in Global South (pp. 82-97). Springer. Ibrahim, M., Adams, C., & El-Zaart, A. (2023). Analyzing patterns and transitions in smart sustainable cities: A systematic review of the literature. Sustainable Cities and Society, 88, 104325. Lim, M. K., Siow, W. T., & Cheng, C. Y. (2022). New capital, old challenges: A comparative analysis of Nusantara and other planned capital cities. Urban Studies, 59(8), 1520-1540. Gaduh, A., Gracner, T., & Rothenberg, A. D. (2022). Life in a slum: Understanding living conditions in Nairobi's slums across time and space. Oxford Economic Papers, 74(3), 707-730. Cities Alliance. (2013). Effective cities, happy citizens: Bhutan's national urban development strategy. Cities Alliance. Retrieved from https://www.citiesalliance.org/resources/publications/effective-cities-happy-citizens-bhutan-strategy Rinzin, C., Vermeulen, W. J., & Glasbergen, P. (2022). Public perceptions of Bhutan's approach to sustainable development in practice. Sustainable Development, 30(5), 1142-1158. Aljoufie, M., & Tiwari, A. (2015). Climate change adaptations for urban water infrastructure in Jeddah. Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(3), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v8n3p52 Yuliadi, D., Hasibuan, H. S., & Koestoer, R. H. (2023). Blue-green infrastructure in Indonesia's new capital city: Opportunities and challenges. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1100(1), 012043. Koch, F., & Ahmad, S. (2023). Digital technologies for climate change adaptation in cities: A systematic review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 92, 104523. Schroeder, K., & Pintér, L. (2022). Governance for sustainable development: Sustainable development as a matter of choice. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 24(2), 207-222. Siebert, S. F., & Belsky, J. M. (2006). Reflections on conservation education and practice in Bhutan. Journal of Bhutan Studies, 16(3), 84–102. NEOM. (2024). NEOM Sustainability Vision: Redefining Urban Living for a Sustainable Future. NEOM Official Website. Retrieved from https://www.neom.com/en-us/about/our-values/code-of-conduct/our-world/environment Costa, C. S., & Lima, I. M. (2022). Nature-based solutions for urban planning: Critical assessment of challenges and opportunities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 226, 104508. Ministry of National Development Planning/National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas). (2021). Indonesia Sustainable Cities Impact Project: Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP). Retrieved from https://lcdi-indonesia.id/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/P173446-SCIP-GEF-Stakeholder-Engagement-Plan-SEP-Rev1-.pdf Best of Bhutan Tours and Travels. (2024). Gelephu Mindfulness City: A Vision for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://bestofbhutan.com/gelephu-mindfulness-city/ Samarawickrama, S. P., Chowdhury, M. R., & Bordoloi, H. (2023). Climate-resilient urban planning strategies: A comparison of emerging approaches. Urban Climate, 47, 101320. Alqurashi, A. F., & Kumar, L. (2023). Land cover change in Saudi coastal regions and its implications for environmental sustainability. Remote Sensing of Environment, 291, 113427. Joss, S., & Molella, A. P. (2023). The eco-city as urban technology: Perspectives on global ecocity developments. Journal of Urban Technology, 30(1), 85-106. Firman, T. (2010). Decentralization reform and local-government proliferation in Indonesia: Towards a fragmentation of regional development. Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, 22(1), 1–17. National Biodiversity Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests (2014). National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan of Bhutan 2014. Royal Government of Bhutan. Retrieved from https://dev-chm.cbd.int/doc/world/bt/bt-nbsap-v4-en.pdf Ura, K. (2015). The Experience of Gross National Happiness as Development Framework. ADB South Asia Working Paper Series, No. 42, Asian Development Bank. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/publications/experience-gross-national-happiness-development-framework Moshashai, D., Leber, A. M., & Savage, J. D. (2020). Saudi Arabia plans for its economic future: Vision 2030, the National Transformation Plan and Saudi fiscal reform. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 47(3), 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2019.1580183 Nusantara Capital City Authority. (2023). Nusantara Net Zero Strategy 2045. Deputy for Environment and Natural Resources. Retrieved from https://ikn.go.id/storage/pedoman-nusantara/3/nusantara-net-zero-strategy-2045-en.pdf Rinzin, C., Vermeulen, W. J., & Glasbergen, P. (2022). Public perceptions of Bhutan's approach to sustainable development in practice. Sustainable Development, 30(5), 1142-1158. Moser, S., Swain, M., & Alkhabbaz, M. H. (2023). Engineering Saudi Arabia's post-oil future: Planned cities and sustainability transformations. Cities, 132, 103938. Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas). (2024). Housing Development Framework for Nusantara: Addressing Affordability and Inclusivity Challenges. National Development Planning Agency. Best of Bhutan Tours. (2024). Gelephu Mindfulness City: A Vision for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://bestofbhutan.com/gelephu-mindfulness-city/ Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030: Transforming the Kingdom's Economy and Society. (2025). Retrieved from https://thebftonline.com/2025/01/21/saudi-arabias-vision-2030-transforming-the-kingdoms-economy-and-society-2/ Saputra, R. (2024). Governance Frameworks and Cultural Preservation in Indonesia: Balancing Policy and Heritage. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 11(3), 25–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/2145 Laurene Powell Jobs, A Champion of Gross National Happiness and Bhutan’s Gelephu Mindfulness City Initiative. (2025). Retrieved from https://bestofbhutan.com/laurene-powell-jobs-a-champion-of-gnh-and-bhutan/ Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6434473","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":444431450,"identity":"321b86d1-5529-4e87-827d-58483433688c","order_by":0,"name":"Rubhesh Kumar Jha","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rubhesh","middleName":"Kumar","lastName":"Jha","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-12 12:08:18","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6434473/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6434473/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":81696016,"identity":"28b540d4-cbb1-488e-b6fc-5302d7d4ac37","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-30 12:09:52","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1294479,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6434473/v1/13b20993-0225-46eb-a254-c674b131f21c.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Comparative Sustainability Frameworks in Planned Urban Development: Economic, Environmental, and Social Integration in Neom, Nusantara, and Gelephu","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe 21st century has witnessed an unprecedented surge in urbanization, with cities now housing over 55% of the global population\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. This urban expansion, coupled with intensifying climate change impacts, has spurred the emergence of planned cities designed with sustainability as a foundational principle\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. While conventional urban development often addresses sustainability retroactively, planned cities offer a unique opportunity to integrate sustainability frameworks from inception. However, the actual implementation of these frameworks varies significantly across different contexts, reflecting diverse priorities, resources, and cultural values\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study focuses on three emerging planned cities that represent fundamentally different approaches to urban sustainability: Neom in Saudi Arabia, Nusantara in Indonesia, and Gelephu in Bhutan. These cities not only span distinct geographical, cultural, and economic contexts but also embody different philosophical orientations toward sustainability. Neom represents a high-technology, high-investment approach in an arid Middle Eastern setting; Nusantara exemplifies a practical response to environmental vulnerability in a tropical Southeast Asian context; and Gelephu showcases a mindfulness-oriented development model in a mountainous Himalayan environment\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe comparative analysis of these three cities addresses crucial gaps in our understanding of how sustainability frameworks are conceptualized and implemented across diverse contexts. While existing research has predominantly focused on retrofitting sustainability in established urban centers or on single-case studies of planned developments\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, this study employs a rigorous comparative methodology to identify patterns, divergences, and transferable lessons across distinctly different planned urban environments. By examining how economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability are integrated within each city's development framework, we seek to understand how contextual factors influence sustainability approaches and what lessons can be transferred across contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban sustainability has emerged as a critical focus in recent years, with scholars identifying various frameworks and indicators to measure and enhance sustainability in urban environments\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. As Yigitcanlar and Kamruzzaman note, \"Sustainable urban development requires a delicate balance between economic prosperity, environmental protection, and social equity\"\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, a balance that each of the three cities in this study approaches differently based on their unique contexts and priorities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings contribute to both theoretical debates on urban sustainability and practical applications for policymakers and urban planners. They highlight the importance of contextually sensitive approaches while identifying common principles that transcend specific settings\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. As cities worldwide grapple with intensifying climate impacts and resource constraints, the insights from this comparative analysis offer valuable guidance for developing urban sustainability frameworks that are both effective and adaptable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEconomic Sustainability Integration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe economic sustainability frameworks of Neom, Nusantara, and Gelephu reveal distinctly different approaches to financing, economic diversification, employment generation, and technological innovation, reflecting their unique contexts and development objectives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFinancing Models and Investment Approaches\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe three cities demonstrate markedly different financing strategies that align with their national economic contexts. Neom's financing model epitomizes a high-investment approach, with Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) committing an initial \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e500\u0026nbsp;billion, supplemented by expected international investments\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. This model relies heavily on sovereign wealth derived from oil revenues, reflecting Saudi Arabia's strategy to diversify beyond petroleum dependence\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The city's funding structure includes specialized investment vehicles for different development zones, with The Line alone estimated to cost \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e100\u0026ndash;200\u0026nbsp;billion for its first phase\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, Nusantara employs a mixed public-private financing model, with the Indonesian government allocating approximately \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e35\u0026nbsp;billion for core infrastructure, while actively courting private and international investment for subsequent development phases\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. This approach reflects Indonesia's more constrained fiscal capacity, with only 19% of funding coming from the state budget, and the remainder expected from public-private partnerships (53%) and private investment (28%)\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu's financing model represents yet another approach, emphasizing sustainable investment aligned with Bhutan's Gross National Happiness (GNH) philosophy\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The development operates under a Special Administrative Region framework that offers tax incentives and regulatory autonomy to attract investments that meet specific sustainability criteria\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Unlike Neom's technology-focused investment or Nusantara's infrastructure-oriented funding, Gelephu prioritizes investments that balance economic returns with environmental and social benefits.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eprovides a comparative overview of the financing models across the three cities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAspect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNeom\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary Funding Source\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSovereign wealth (PIF)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernment budget with PPP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBalanced public-private with GNH criteria\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInitial Investment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e500 billion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e35 billion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot publicly disclosed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFunding Distribution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh concentration in technology and infrastructure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFocus on administrative infrastructure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmphasis on balanced development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvestment Criteria\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic diversification and technological innovation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePractical infrastructure and administrative functionality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlignment with GNH principles and sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForeign Investment Strategy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAggressive courting of global investors\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelective engagement with strategic partners\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCareful screening based on GNH compatibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinancial Sustainability Approach\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLong-term returns through economic transformation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCost recovery through administrative functions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBalance of modest returns with social and environmental benefits\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEconomic Diversification Strategies\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEach city's economic diversification strategy reflects different national transition objectives. Neom is explicitly designed as an economic diversification engine for Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030, focusing on 16 key sectors including renewable energy, biotechnology, food production, tourism, and media\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The city aims to generate 380,000 jobs and contribute \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e48\u0026nbsp;billion to Saudi Arabia's GDP by 2030, with particular emphasis on knowledge economy sectors that reduce dependence on oil revenues\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara's economic diversification approach centers on developing a government administrative center supplemented by knowledge-based industries, pharmaceutical manufacturing, ecotourism, and sustainable agriculture\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. This reflects Indonesia's dual objectives of relieving pressure on Jakarta while creating new economic growth centers in less developed regions of Borneo\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu's economic model emphasizes selective diversification around green industries, wellness tourism, sustainable agriculture, and digital services\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Rather than pursuing diversification for growth alone, Gelephu's approach integrates economic activities with environmental stewardship and cultural preservation, prioritizing industries with low environmental impacts and high social benefits\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEmployment Generation Frameworks\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe employment frameworks across the three cities vary significantly in scale, skills emphasis, and inclusion strategies. Neom's employment model emphasizes high-skill jobs in technology and innovation sectors, with targets to create 460,000 jobs by 2030\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The framework includes specialized training institutions, international talent recruitment programs, and partnerships with global technology companies. However, analysis of current documentation reveals limited attention to inclusion of local communities, particularly displaced populations\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara's employment framework focuses on balanced job creation across skill levels, with particular emphasis on public administration, services, construction, and maintenance\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The city's planning documents specify that approximately 50% of jobs will be in government functions, with the remainder in supporting services and new economic sectors. The framework includes specific provisions for local hiring and skills development programs for indigenous communities\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu's employment model emphasizes quality over quantity, focusing on meaningful work aligned with GNH principles\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The framework includes deliberate integration of traditional livelihoods with modern sectors, skill development programs emphasizing both technical and mindfulness capabilities, and explicit provisions for inclusive employment of vulnerable groups. Unlike Neom and Nusantara, Gelephu's employment targets are specified in qualitative rather than quantitative terms, emphasizing job satisfaction and meaning rather than numerical goals\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTechnology Integration and Innovation Ecosystems\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe technological approaches of the three cities reflect fundamentally different relationships with innovation. Neom positions technology as the central driver of sustainability, with plans for ubiquitous AI, robotics, and smart infrastructure\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The city's planning documents describe an urban environment where \"70% of functions are fully automated\" and where technology manages energy, water, transport, and waste systems with minimal human intervention. This approach reflects a techno-optimistic vision where sustainability challenges are primarily addressed through technological solutions\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara adopts a more moderate technological approach, implementing smart city systems for core functions while maintaining emphasis on human-scale interaction\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The city's framework includes digital governance systems, intelligent transportation networks, and environmental monitoring technologies, but explicitly avoids the \"fully automated\" vision of Neom. Planning documents emphasize \"appropriate technology\" that balances efficiency with accessibility\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu presents the most distinctive technological vision, emphasizing \"mindful technology\" that enhances human well-being and environmental harmony\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. While incorporating renewable energy systems and efficient resource management technologies, Gelephu's framework explicitly limits certain technologies that might disrupt social cohesion or environmental balance. The innovation ecosystem emphasizes technologies that strengthen rather than replace human connections and environmental relationships\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEnvironmental Sustainability Integration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe environmental sustainability frameworks of the three cities reveal contrasting approaches to climate resilience, resource management, biodiversity conservation, and carbon neutrality pathways.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eClimate Resilience and Adaptation Strategies\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe three cities demonstrate fundamentally different approaches to climate resilience based on their distinct environmental contexts. Neom's climate resilience strategy focuses on technological solutions to harsh desert conditions, including water desalination systems with 30% higher efficiency than conventional methods, climate-controlled urban spaces within The Line's enclosed structure, and AI-driven predictive systems for extreme weather events\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. This approach reflects an engineering-oriented response to climate challenges, emphasizing human control over environmental conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara's climate resilience framework centers on working with natural systems in a tropical rainforest environment. The city's design incorporates extensive green and blue infrastructure, including water-sensitive urban design principles, forest conservation buffers, and distributed energy systems resilient to tropical storms\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Planning documents specifically address adaptation to projected regional climate impacts, including increased rainfall intensity, flooding risks, and temperature increases\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu's climate resilience approach emphasizes harmony with mountain ecosystems and traditional knowledge systems\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The framework incorporates historical Bhutanese architectural principles proven resilient to local conditions, watershed management based on traditional practices, and climate-adaptive agricultural systems. Unlike Neom's technological emphasis or Nusantara's engineered natural systems, Gelephu's approach draws explicitly on centuries of local adaptation knowledge while incorporating contemporary climate science\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResource Management Systems\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResource management approaches across the three cities reflect different priorities and contexts. Neom's resource management systems emphasize closed-loop cycles and technological efficiency, including 100% renewable energy production, zero-emission transportation, and water systems that aim to eliminate waste through advanced treatment and recycling\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The city's waste management framework targets zero waste through automated sorting, recycling, and conversion technologies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara's resource management approach balances modern efficiency with practical implementation in a developing economy context\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The framework includes 60% energy from renewable sources (primarily solar and geothermal), water systems that integrate traditional rainwater harvesting with modern treatment technologies, and waste management that combines centralized and decentralized approaches. Planning documents acknowledge implementation challenges and outline phased approaches to resource efficiency\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu's resource management systems reflect Bhutan's existing strength in renewable energy and traditional resource stewardship\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The framework builds on Bhutan's 100% renewable electricity production, emphasizes passive design to minimize energy demands, incorporates traditional water management practices, and prioritizes waste reduction and natural processing over technological solutions. Unlike Neom's emphasis on technological innovation, Gelephu's approach prioritizes sufficiency and minimizing throughput\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Sustainability Approaches in Neom, Nusantara, and Gelephu\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Aspect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNeom\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClimate Resilience Strategy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology-driven solutions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorking with natural systems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditional knowledge integration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater Management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh-tech desalination and recycling\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBalanced traditional-modern systems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditional watershed management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy Approach\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100% renewable with technological emphasis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60% renewable with practical implementation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100% renewable with emphasis on reduced demand\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWaste Management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eZero waste through automation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHybrid centralized-decentralized systems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWaste minimization and natural processing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBiodiversity Conservation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrict separation of urban and natural zones\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorridor approach to preserve habitat connectivity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntegration of human activities with natural systems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarbon Strategy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarbon neutrality through technology\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhased carbon reduction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarbon negative approach through natural systems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Monitoring\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAI-driven systems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBalanced technological-manual systems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity-based participatory monitoring\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBiodiversity Conservation Approaches\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe biodiversity conservation frameworks across the three cities reveal different relationships with natural systems. Neom's biodiversity approach combines strict protection of designated nature reserves (covering 95% of the development area) with highly controlled urban environments\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The framework includes ambitious restoration targets, including rehabilitation of degraded desert ecosystems and coral reef protection programs, alongside technological monitoring systems. However, the sharp separation between urban and natural areas reflects a compartmentalized approach to biodiversity conservation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara's biodiversity conservation framework acknowledges the challenges of developing in one of the world's biodiversity hotspots\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The approach emphasizes wildlife corridors connecting forest fragments, integrated green spaces within urban areas, and habitat restoration in degraded areas. Planning documents include specific provisions for orangutan conservation, endemic species protection, and strict development boundaries to prevent encroachment on primary forests. Nevertheless, the relocation of Indonesia's capital to Borneo has raised significant concerns about threats to biodiversity despite these conservation measures\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu's approach to biodiversity reflects Bhutan's constitutional commitment to maintaining 60% forest cover and existing network of protected areas\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The framework emphasizes human-wildlife coexistence rather than separation, incorporates biodiversity considerations into all aspects of urban design, and includes specific provisions for endemic species protection. Unlike Neom's technological monitoring or Nusantara's corridor approach, Gelephu's framework emphasizes spiritual and cultural connections to biodiversity alongside scientific conservation principles\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCarbon Neutrality Pathways\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe carbon neutrality strategies of the three cities reflect different ambitions and approaches. Neom targets carbon neutrality from inception, with planning documents describing a \"zero-carbon city powered entirely by renewable energy\"\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The framework includes massive investments in solar, wind, and green hydrogen production (targeting 4 GW by 2026), electric mobility systems, and carbon capture technologies. This approach reflects an ambitious technological pathway to carbon neutrality, dependent on both proven and emerging technologies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara aims for carbon neutrality by 2045, aligning with Indonesia's national climate commitments\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The framework includes a phased approach beginning with carbon-efficient design and construction methods, transition to renewable energy systems (particularly solar and geothermal), preservation of forest carbon sinks, and gradual transportation electrification. This pragmatic approach acknowledges implementation challenges while establishing a clear decarbonization pathway.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu's framework targets not just carbon neutrality but carbon negativity, building on Bhutan's status as one of the world's few carbon-negative countries\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The approach emphasizes forest preservation as carbon sinks, minimal-impact construction methods, 100% renewable energy, and lifestyle patterns that inherently minimize emissions. Unlike Neom's technological emphasis or Nusantara's phased approach, Gelephu's carbon strategy is integrated with broader cultural and spiritual values that inherently promote low-carbon living.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSocial Sustainability Integration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe social sustainability frameworks across the three cities reveal fundamentally different approaches to housing, cultural integration, stakeholder participation, and wellbeing metrics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHousing Accessibility and Affordability Mechanisms\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eHousing approaches across the three cities reflect different priorities regarding accessibility, affordability, and design philosophy. Neom's housing framework emphasizes technological innovation and efficiency within The Line's linear city concept, with modular housing units designed for specific population segments\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. While planning documents mention \"housing for all income levels,\" detailed affordability mechanisms are limited, with greater emphasis on premium housing for knowledge workers and executives. The framework includes innovative shared space concepts but provides limited specific provisions for inclusive housing access.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara's housing approach emphasizes balanced development across income levels, with specific provisions for civil servant housing, workforce accommodation, and inclusive communities\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The framework includes dedicated affordable housing zones with 30% of residential development allocated to middle and lower-income segments, rent-to-own schemes for government employees, and integration of housing with transportation access. Planning documents explicitly address housing affordability as a priority concern.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu's housing framework reflects Bhutanese architectural traditions adapted for contemporary needs\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The approach emphasizes human-scale development, mixed-income communities, and spiritual principles in spatial organization. Housing affordability is addressed through both market mechanisms and traditional community-based approaches, with specific provisions for maintaining cultural continuity in housing design. Unlike Neom's technological emphasis or Nusantara's administrative efficiency, Gelephu's housing framework prioritizes community cohesion and traditional spatial relationships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCultural Integration and Preservation Strategies\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultural approaches across the three cities reveal fundamentally different relationships with heritage and identity. Neom's cultural framework represents the most radical departure from existing cultural contexts, emphasizing a \"new way of life\" distinct from traditional Saudi society\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. While planning documents reference preservation of archaeological sites within the development area, the overall approach emphasizes creating a cosmopolitan international culture rather than integrating with regional heritage. The framework describes Neom as a \"cognitive city\" with a new cultural identity formed around innovation and future orientation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara's cultural approach balances Indonesian national identity with local Kalimantan cultures\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The framework includes architectural references to national symbols, dedicated cultural districts celebrating Indonesia's diversity, and specific provisions for indigenous cultural preservation. Planning documents emphasize the city as \"a symbol of national identity\" while acknowledging the importance of respecting and integrating local Dayak cultural elements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu's framework represents the strongest emphasis on cultural continuity, with development explicitly guided by Bhutanese spiritual and cultural principles. The approach integrates traditional architecture, spatial arrangements reflecting Buddhist concepts, and deliberate preservation of cultural practices. Unlike Neom's future-oriented cosmopolitanism or Nusantara's national symbolism, Gelephu's approach sees cultural preservation not as a separate consideration but as the foundation of sustainable development itself.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStakeholder Participation Frameworks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe stakeholder participation approaches across the three cities reveal different conceptions of governance and community engagement. Neom's participation framework emphasizes expert-led development with limited provisions for bottom-up input. The governance structure is primarily corporate, with specialized development authorities having significant autonomy. While planning documents mention \"collaborative development,\" specific mechanisms for community input are limited, and the relocation of existing communities has generated criticism regarding participation rights.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara's participation framework reflects Indonesia's democratic governance alongside administrative efficiency objectives. The approach includes public consultations on major development phases, multi-stakeholder advisory boards, and specific provisions for indigenous community representation. Planning documents acknowledge initial criticisms regarding limited consultation and outline enhanced participation mechanisms for future development phases.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu's framework represents the strongest emphasis on participatory governance, reflecting Bhutan's GNH principles that emphasize good governance and community vitality. The approach includes traditional consensus-building practices alongside contemporary participation tools, regular happiness assessment surveys, and specific provisions for vulnerable group inclusion in decision-making. Unlike Neom's expert-led approach or Nusantara's representative consultation, Gelephu's framework emphasizes direct community engagement in shaping development trajectories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eWell-being and Quality of Life Metrics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe well-being frameworks and metrics across the three cities reveal fundamentally different conceptions of human flourishing. Neom's approach emphasizes technological enablement of well-being, with planning documents describing how AI and automated systems will \"free residents from mundane tasks\" and create \"optimal living conditions\". Well-being metrics focus primarily on service efficiency, health outcomes, and resident satisfaction with technological systems. This reflects an instrumental approach to well-being centered on convenience, efficiency, and technological enhancement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara's well-being framework balances practical needs with quality of life considerations. The approach emphasizes access to services, reduced commuting times compared to Jakarta, green space accessibility, and community cohesion. Well-being metrics include both objective indicators (healthcare access, education quality) and subjective assessments of life satisfaction, reflecting a balanced approach to measuring urban success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu's framework is explicitly built around Bhutan's established Gross National Happiness index, which includes nine domains spanning psychological well-being, time use, cultural resilience, and ecological diversity. This comprehensive approach represents the most holistic conception of well-being among the three cities, measuring not only material conditions but also spiritual, emotional, and relational dimensions of human experience. Unlike Neom's technological focus or Nusantara's balanced pragmatism, Gelephu's approach places subjective well-being at the center of its development philosophy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eContextual Factors Influencing Sustainability Approaches\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe distinct sustainability approaches in Neom, Nusantara, and Gelephu can be traced to specific contextual factors that shape their development frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePolitical System Influences\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe different political systems governing each city significantly influence their sustainability approaches. Neom's development reflects Saudi Arabia's centralized governance structure, with decisions flowing primarily from the highest levels of government with limited mechanisms for public input. This enables rapid, ambitious planning but potentially limits adaptation to community needs. The city operates as a quasi-autonomous zone with its own regulatory framework, reflecting Saudi Arabia's approach to creating specialized economic environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara's development occurs within Indonesia's democratic system, requiring balancing of multiple stakeholder interests and political constituencies. The city's planning documents reflect compromises between administrative efficiency, political symbolism, and practical implementation constraints. The governance structure includes both special administrative provisions and integration with Indonesia's existing democratic institutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu's framework reflects Bhutan's unique governance model combining monarchical leadership with democratic institutions, all guided by GNH principles. The Special Administrative Region status provides regulatory autonomy while maintaining alignment with national values. This political context enables long-term thinking relatively insulated from electoral cycles, while still incorporating democratic participation principles.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContextual Factors Influencing Sustainability Approaches\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContextual Factor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNeom\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolitical System\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCentralized, top-down governance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemocratic with bureaucratic complexity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMonarchical with GNH principles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic Resources\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbundant sovereign wealth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstrained public finances\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited financial but rich natural capital\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultural Values\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModernization and technological innovation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational identity and practical functionality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditional values and spiritual principles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeographic Setting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArid coastal desert\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTropical rainforest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMountainous Himalayan environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment Motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic diversification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministrative decongestion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational well-being enhancement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholder Dynamics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorporate and expert-led\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernmental with democratic input\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity-based with traditional influence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternational Positioning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobal showcase for post-oil future\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegional administrative hub\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel for alternative development paradigm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEconomic Resource Availability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe economic contexts of the three cities fundamentally shape their sustainability approaches. Neom's high-resource model reflects Saudi Arabia's significant sovereign wealth, enabling massive investments in cutting-edge technologies and infrastructure without immediate return requirements. This resource abundance allows for ambitious technological solutions that might be impractical in more constrained settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara operates within Indonesia's middle-income economy with significant resource constraints, requiring phased development and careful prioritization of investments. The framework acknowledges financial limitations and emphasizes cost-effective approaches to sustainability, with planning documents specifically addressing budget constraints and implementation feasibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu's approach reflects Bhutan's limited financial resources but significant natural and cultural capital. The framework emphasizes leveraging existing strengths (hydropower, forest resources, cultural heritage) rather than importing costly technologies. This context necessitates careful resource allocation but also encourages innovation in low-cost, high-impact sustainability approaches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCultural Values and Priorities\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultural contexts profoundly shape sustainability conceptualization across the three cities. Neom's framework reflects Saudi Arabia's rapid modernization agenda and embrace of technological solutions, with sustainability conceptualized primarily through efficiency and innovation rather than traditional practices. The emphasis on creating a new cultural context rather than building on existing values represents a distinctive approach to cultural foundations of sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara's approach reflects Indonesia's cultural diversity and emphasis on national unity, with sustainability framed both as technical challenge and as expression of national development aspirations. The framework explicitly references Indonesian cultural concepts alongside international sustainability principles, reflecting a hybrid approach to cultural foundations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu's framework is most explicitly rooted in cultural values, with Bhutanese Buddhist principles directly shaping sustainability conceptualization. The GNH philosophy provides a comprehensive cultural framework that inherently integrates economic, environmental, and social dimensions, offering a fundamentally different cultural foundation for sustainability than Western-derived models.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGeographic and Climatic Constraints\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe distinct geographical settings of the three cities necessitate different approaches to environmental sustainability. Neom's location in an arid coastal desert with extreme temperature ranges requires intensive technological intervention to create livable environments, shaping its resource-intensive approach to environmental management. The harsh conditions necessitate significant infrastructure for water, cooling, and ecosystem protection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNusantara's tropical rainforest setting presents fundamentally different challenges, including high biodiversity value, intense rainfall, and humidity. These conditions shape the city's emphasis on water management, biodiversity protection, and adaptation to tropical conditions through vernacular design elements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGelephu's mountainous Himalayan environment, with dramatic topography and distinct seasonal patterns, necessitates specific approaches to construction, water management, and disaster resilience. The geographical setting encourages compact development and careful integration with topographical features.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTransferable Lessons\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite their contextual differences, the comparative analysis reveals transferable lessons and shared patterns across the three cities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIntegration of Sustainability Dimensions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll three cities demonstrate the importance of integrating economic, environmental, and social dimensions rather than treating them as separate domains. Neom's integration occurs primarily through technological systems that simultaneously address multiple sustainability challenges. Nusantara's integration emphasizes practical synergies between environmental protection, economic development, and social needs. Gelephu's approach achieves integration through a holistic philosophical framework that inherently connects these dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis pattern suggests that effective sustainability frameworks require deliberate mechanisms for addressing cross-dimensional impacts and synergies, regardless of specific implementation approaches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eContextual Adaptation of Universal Principles\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll three cities incorporate established sustainability principles while adapting implementation to local contexts. Neom applies circular economy principles through high-technology approaches suitable to its resource-rich context. Nusantara adapts compact city concepts to tropical conditions and Indonesia's development stage. Gelephu reinterprets universal sustainability principles through Bhutanese cultural frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis pattern highlights the importance of translating global sustainability principles into contextually appropriate implementation strategies rather than imposing standardized solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLong-term Vision with Flexible Implementation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll three cities balance ambitious long-term visions with practical implementation pathways. Neom's 2030 and 2039 targets are supported by phased development plans. Nusantara's 2045 completion vision includes five distinct development phases with clear milestones. Gelephu's generational vision incorporates adaptive implementation mechanisms responsive to changing conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis pattern demonstrates the importance of maintaining ambitious sustainability targets while creating realistic, staged implementation pathways that can adapt to emerging challenges and opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGovernance Innovation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll three cities employ innovative governance approaches that enable sustainability implementation. Neom's special economic zone status provides regulatory flexibility for testing new approaches. Nusantara's dedicated capital authority enables coordinated implementation across governmental functions. Gelephu's Special Administrative Region status creates space for regulatory innovation while maintaining alignment with national priorities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis pattern suggests that effective sustainability implementation often requires governance innovations that create protected spaces for experimentation while ensuring accountability to broader social goals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe comparative analysis of sustainability frameworks in Neom, Nusantara, and Gelephu reveals both distinctive approaches shaped by contextual factors and common patterns that transcend specific settings. These findings have significant implications for understanding how sustainability is conceptualized, implemented, and evaluated in planned urban developments globally.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis challenges simplistic notions of a universal \u0026quot;sustainable city\u0026quot; model, demonstrating instead how sustainability frameworks are fundamentally shaped by cultural values, resource availability, governance systems, and geographical contexts. While all three cities engage with common sustainability principles such as resource efficiency, carbon reduction, and social inclusion, they interpret and implement these principles through distinctly different lenses. Neom\u0026apos;s technology-centered approach, Nusantara\u0026apos;s pragmatic balance, and Gelephu\u0026apos;s mindfulness-based framework represent fundamentally different sustainability paradigms rather than merely different implementation tactics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings suggest that effective sustainability frameworks must emerge from and respond to specific contexts rather than being imported as standardized templates. The comparative analysis reveals that sustainability is not merely a technical challenge but a deeply cultural process that must engage with existing values, practices, and priorities. Gelephu\u0026apos;s explicit grounding in Bhutanese cultural principles offers a particularly compelling example of how sustainability can be conceptualized from within a specific cultural framework rather than imposed as an external concept.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimultaneously, the identification of common patterns across these diverse contexts suggests that certain foundational elements transcend specific settings. All three cities demonstrate the importance of integration across sustainability dimensions, long-term vision with staged implementation, contextual adaptation of universal principles, and governance innovation. These shared patterns point toward emerging principles for sustainable urban development that can be adapted across contexts while respecting local distinctiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe comparative analysis also highlights tensions inherent in planned city development. All three cities navigate complex balances between expert-led planning and community participation, between ambitious vision and practical implementation, and between creating new urban forms and respecting existing contexts. How these tensions are resolved significantly shapes sustainability outcomes, with Neom emphasizing expert knowledge and technological innovation, Nusantara balancing practical needs with symbolic aspirations, and Gelephu prioritizing community values and traditional knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings contribute to theoretical debates about sustainability by highlighting the plural, contextual nature of sustainability frameworks. Rather than converging toward a single model of urban sustainability, the evidence suggests multiple viable pathways shaped by cultural, economic, political, and geographical contexts. This pluralistic understanding challenges universalizing approaches while still identifying shared principles that can inform diverse implementations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor urban planners and policymakers, the comparative analysis offers practical guidance for developing contextually appropriate sustainability frameworks. The findings suggest the importance of:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Explicitly identifying and engaging with cultural values that shape sustainability conceptualization\u003c/p\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Developing staged implementation pathways that balance ambition with practicality\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Creating governance mechanisms that enable integration across sustainability dimensions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Adapting universal principles to specific geographical, economic, and social contexts\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. Balancing technological innovation with social and cultural considerations\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/span\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study has several limitations that suggest directions for future research. First, as all three cities are still in early development stages, the analysis necessarily focuses on planning frameworks rather than implementation outcomes. Longitudinal studies tracking these cities as they develop will provide valuable insights into how initial frameworks translate into actual sustainability outcomes. Second, the reliance on documentary evidence without field observation or stakeholder interviews limits understanding of how these frameworks are perceived and enacted by various actors. Future research incorporating primary fieldwork would enrich understanding of these dynamics. Finally, the selection of three distinctive cases, while enabling clear comparative analysis, limits generalizability to other contexts. Expanding comparative analysis to a wider range of planned cities would further test and refine the patterns identified here.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite these limitations, this comparative analysis makes a significant contribution to understanding how sustainability frameworks are shaped by and respond to diverse contexts. The findings highlight both the importance of contextual sensitivity and the possibility of identifying common principles that can inform sustainable urban development across widely varying settings. As cities worldwide face intensifying sustainability challenges, this balanced approach\u0026mdash;respecting contextual distinctiveness while learning across boundaries\u0026mdash;offers a promising path forward.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a comparative case study methodology to analyze sustainability frameworks in three planned urban developments: Neom (Saudi Arabia), Nusantara (Indonesia), and Gelephu (Bhutan). The comparative case study approach was selected for its ability to examine complex phenomena within their real-world contexts while identifying patterns and relationships across different settings. This methodology is particularly appropriate for understanding how sustainability frameworks are shaped by contextual factors while still allowing for identification of transferable lessons.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research was guided by three core questions:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHow do economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability integrate within each city's development framework?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhat contextual factors influence sustainability approaches in each case?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhat transferable lessons can be identified across these diverse contexts?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe case selection employed a \"most different cases\" strategy, deliberately choosing planned cities that vary significantly in their geographical, cultural, economic, and political contexts while sharing the core characteristic of being newly planned cities with explicit sustainability goals. This selection strategy enhances the generalizability of any common patterns identified across the cases while also highlighting how different contexts shape sustainability approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCase Selection Justification\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe three cases were selected based on their distinctive characteristics and approaches to sustainability:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeom represents a high-resource, technology-driven approach in an arid Middle Eastern context. Located in northwestern Saudi Arabia along the Red Sea coast, Neom is being developed as part of Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 with an estimated budget exceeding $500 billion. The development emphasizes cutting-edge technology, including AI, robotics, and advanced renewable energy systems, to create a sustainable urban environment in challenging desert conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNusantara exemplifies an administrative capital replacement in a tropical Southeast Asian setting. Located in East Kalimantan province on the island of Borneo, Nusantara is being developed to replace Jakarta as Indonesia's capital city at an estimated cost of $35 billion. The development must balance immediate administrative needs with sustainability goals while addressing tropical rainforest conservation, climate adaptation, and inclusive development in a middle-income country context.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGelephu represents a mindfulness-oriented development in a mountainous Himalayan environment. Located in southern Bhutan near the Indian border, Gelephu is being developed as a \"Mindfulness City\" guided by Bhutan's Gross National Happiness philosophy. The development emphasizes harmony with nature, cultural preservation, and well-being in a distinctive spiritual and cultural context.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese cases represent widely varying approaches to urban sustainability across different geographical, economic, cultural, and political contexts, allowing for robust comparative analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Collection Strategy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study employed a comprehensive document collection strategy to gather evidence across multiple categories. No interviews were conducted due to feasibility constraints. The data collection focused on four primary source types:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOfficial Planning Documents and Sustainability Frameworks\u003c/strong\u003e: Core planning documents were collected for each city, including master plans, sustainability strategies, design guidelines, and regulatory frameworks. For Neom, this included the \"Neom Master Plan,\" \"The Line Concept Document,\" and \"Neom Sustainability Charter.\" For Nusantara, documents included the \"Master Plan for the Capital City of Nusantara,\" \"Nusantara Sustainability Framework,\" and \"IKN Development Guidelines.\" For Gelephu, materials included the \"Gelephu Mindfulness City Concept Plan,\" \"Gelephu Special Administrative Region Framework,\" and \"GNH-Based Development Guidelines.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnvironmental Impact Assessments and Technical Reports\u003c/strong\u003e: Technical documents detailing environmental considerations were collected, including impact assessments, resource management plans, and specialized studies. For Neom, this included \"Neom Environmental Baseline Studies,\" \"Neom Water Strategy,\" and \"Renewable Energy Implementation Framework.\" For Nusantara, materials included \"IKN Strategic Environmental Assessment,\" \"Biodiversity Impact Assessment,\" and \"Climate Resilience Strategy.\" For Gelephu, documents included \"Gelephu Environmental Baseline,\" \"Watershed Management Plan,\" and \"Carbon Management Strategy.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePolicy Statements and Governmental Communications\u003c/strong\u003e: Official communications explaining policy rationales and implementation approaches were gathered, including speeches, press releases, and policy directives. For Neom, this included Royal Decrees establishing the project, Vision 2030 documentation, and official Neom communications. For Nusantara, materials included Presidential Decrees, Ministry of Public Works and Housing statements, and National Development Planning Agency documents. For Gelephu, documents included Royal pronouncements, National Assembly proceedings, and Special Administrative Region regulations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcademic and Professional Analyses\u003c/strong\u003e: Independent analyses of each development were collected, including academic studies, professional evaluations, and expert commentaries. For all three cities, this included peer-reviewed journal articles, technical reports from international organizations, and analyses by urban planning professionals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll documents were organized in a comprehensive database categorizing materials by source, date, type, and relevance to specific analytical dimensions. Documents in languages other than English were translated by professional translators to ensure accuracy. The collection process continued until theoretical saturation was reached, with no significant new information emerging from additional documents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnalytical Framework\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis employed a multi-level comparative framework examining sustainability approaches across three analytical axes:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHorizontal Comparison\u003c/strong\u003e: Direct comparison of sustainability frameworks across the three cities, examining how each addresses specific dimensions of sustainability and identifying similarities and differences in approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVertical Comparison\u003c/strong\u003e: Examination of how national policies, cultural contexts, and governance structures influence city-level sustainability implementation, tracing connections between broader contextual factors and specific urban sustainability approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTransversal Comparison\u003c/strong\u003e: Analysis of how sustainability concepts evolve across different planning stages, from initial conceptualization through detailed planning to implementation guidance, identifying shifts, refinements, and adaptations in sustainability frameworks over time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis was structured according to a comprehensive analytical matrix addressing three core sustainability dimensions with specific indicators for each:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEconomic Sustainability Dimension\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFinancing models and investment approaches\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEconomic diversification strategies\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEmployment generation frameworks\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTechnology integration and innovation ecosystems\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnvironmental Sustainability Dimension\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eClimate resilience and adaptation strategies\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eResource management systems (water, energy, waste)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBiodiversity conservation approaches\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCarbon neutrality pathways\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Sustainability Dimension\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHousing accessibility and affordability mechanisms\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCultural integration and preservation strategies\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStakeholder participation frameworks\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWell-being and quality of life metrics\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEach indicator was systematically examined across all three cities using standardized analytical questions to ensure consistent comparison. These questions addressed approach characteristics, implementation mechanisms, integration with other sustainability dimensions, and contextual influences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analytical process employed three complementary techniques:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)\u003c/strong\u003e: Systematic comparison of conditions and outcomes across cases to identify necessary and sufficient conditions for specific sustainability approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProcess Tracing\u003c/strong\u003e: Detailed examination of causal chains and developmental pathways to understand how sustainability frameworks evolved in each context and how different factors influenced their development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePattern Matching\u003c/strong\u003e: Identification of recurring elements across cases to discern common principles and approaches despite contextual differences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThroughout the analysis, alternative explanations for similarities and differences were systematically considered, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePolitical system influences\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEconomic resource availability\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCultural values and priorities\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHistorical urban development patterns\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGeographic and climatic constraints\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis rigorous analytical approach enabled identification of both context-specific factors shaping sustainability frameworks and transferable lessons that transcend particular settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations and Mitigation Strategies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has several methodological limitations that were addressed through specific mitigation strategies:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDocumentary Focus\u003c/strong\u003e: The reliance on documentary evidence without fieldwork or interviews limits direct engagement with implementation realities and stakeholder perspectives. This limitation was mitigated by triangulating multiple document sources, including both official materials and independent analyses, to develop a more comprehensive understanding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDevelopmental Stage\u003c/strong\u003e: All three cities are in early development stages, limiting analysis of actual implementation outcomes. This limitation was addressed by focusing on framework design while acknowledging the gap between planning and implementation, and by examining phased implementation approaches where available.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTranslation Challenges\u003c/strong\u003e: Documents in multiple languages required translation, creating potential for misinterpretation. This risk was mitigated through professional translation services and verification of key concepts across multiple documents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComparative Equivalence\u003c/strong\u003e: The three cities vary significantly in scale, timeframe, and development stage, creating challenges for direct comparison. This limitation was addressed through the development of a standardized analytical framework applied consistently across cases while acknowledging contextual differences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearcher Positionality\u003c/strong\u003e: The researchers' cultural backgrounds and disciplinary orientations inevitably influence interpretation of sustainability frameworks. This limitation was addressed through reflexive practice, explicit consideration of alternative interpretations, and engagement with diverse theoretical perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese limitations suggest caution in generalizing findings, particularly regarding implementation outcomes. However, the robust comparative methodology provides valuable insights into how sustainability frameworks are conceptualized and designed across diverse contexts, with important implications for theory and practice.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets analyzed in this study consist of publicly available documents including official planning documents, environmental impact assessments, policy statements, and academic analyses of each city. These documents were collected from official government websites, project portals, published academic literature, and international organization repositories. A comprehensive database of all documents analyzed, including full citations and access information, is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Due to copyright restrictions, full text of some documents cannot be shared directly, but source information is provided for all materials referenced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCode Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo custom code was developed or used in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to the study design, data collection, and analysis. Each author reviewed and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations. (2023). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2022 Revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeto, K. C., G\u0026uuml;neralp, B., \u0026amp; Hutyra, L. R. (2022). Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2050 and impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(11), e2117832119.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBibri, S. E., \u0026amp; Krogstie, J. (2022). Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 72, 103013.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlQahtany, A., \u0026amp; Abubakar, I. R. (2023). A vision of sustainability in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: The case of NEOM. Sustainable Development, 31(4), 2151-2168.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePerdana, A. J. (2024). Building Nusantara: a comparative study on capital city relocation and the path towards a smart, sustainable urban future. E3S Web of Conferences, 495, 01001.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBest of Bhutan Tours (2024). Gelephu Mindfulness City: A Vision of Harmonious Living.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCugurullo, F. (2021). Frankenstein urbanism: Eco, smart and autonomous cities, artificial intelligence and the end of the city. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Sepp\u0026auml;, I., \u0026amp; Airaksinen, M. (2022). What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities, 82, 349-361.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSharifi, A. (2021). A typology of smart city assessment tools and indicator sets. Sustainable Cities and Society, 56, 102148.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYigitcanlar, T., \u0026amp; Kamruzzaman, M. (2022). Smart cities and sustainability: A new planning agenda. Journal of Urban Technology, 29(1), 45-73.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamaswami, A., Russell, A. G., Culligan, P. J., Sharma, K. R., \u0026amp; Kumar, E. (2021). Meta-principles for developing smart, sustainable, and healthy cities. Science, 372(6549), 1324-1326.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVision 2030 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. (2023). NEOM: Building a Sustainable Future. Council of Economic and Development Affairs.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFadel, E. H., \u0026amp; Mohamed, A. B. (2025). Neom City: A Paradigm Shift in Urban Development and Economic Transformation.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCaines, C., Ashraf, F., Alalmi, Y., \u0026amp; Jain, M. (2023). NEOM: A vision for smart sustainable urbanism in the desert. Built Environment, 49(1), 73-89.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIndonesia Ministry of National Development Planning. (2023). Indonesia\u0026apos;s New Capital: From Vision to Implementation. National Development Planning Agency, Republic of Indonesia.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRizqi, A. N., \u0026amp; Phelps, N. A. (2022). Indonesia\u0026apos;s capital relocation: The politics of infrastructure development. Cities, 122, 103527.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUra, K., \u0026amp; Galay, K. (2023). Gross National Happiness and Urban Development in Bhutan. Journal of Bhutan Studies, 35(1), 32-56.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHindustan Times. (2024, December 5). PM Modi, Bhutan King discuss cooperation for Gelephu special administrative region. Hindustan Times. Retrieved from https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/pm-modi-bhutan-king-discuss-cooperation-for-gelephu-spl-administrative-region-101733414542953.html\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlhejaili, M. O. (2024). Leveraging the OECD Framework to Create Policies That Enable Eco-Innovation: A Case Study of Neom Part II. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(5), 2029\u0026ndash;2037. https://doi.org/10.53555/kuey.v30i5.2783\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoshashai, D., Leber, A. M., \u0026amp; Savage, J. D. (2023). Saudi Arabia plans for its economic future: Vision 2030, the National Transformation Plan and Saudi fiscal reform. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 50(2), 241\u0026ndash;258. Retrieved from https://www.asau.ru/files/pdf/2968220.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRachmawati, R., Reinhart, H., Rohmah, A. A., Sensuse, D. I., \u0026amp; Sunindyo, W. D. (2024). Smart sustainable urban development for the new capital city of Indonesia. Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis, 16(1), 85-113.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYuliadi, D., Hasibuan, H. S., \u0026amp; Koestoer, R. H. (2024). The Relocation of Indonesia\u0026apos;s Capital: Public Policy Analysis and Its Implications for Regional Development. Eduvest \u0026ndash; Journal of Universal Studies, 4(1), 12\u0026ndash;28. Retrieved from https://eduvest.greenvest.co.id/index.php/edv/article/download/34668/2916/14579\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWangchuk, T. (2023). Traditional ecological knowledge and sustainable urban development: Lessons from Bhutan. Environmental Conservation, 50(4), 413-424.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrooks, J. S. (2023). Avoiding the limits to growth: Gross National Happiness in Bhutan as a model for sustainable development. Sustainability, 15(3), 2145-2162.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNEOM. (2023). NEOM Economic Impact Report. Retrieved from https://www.neom.com/en-us/newsroom/economic-impact\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmnesty International. (2023). \u0026quot;They Came to Destroy\u0026quot;: Saudi Arabia\u0026apos;s Forced Relocations for NEOM City. Amnesty International Ltd.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNusantara Capital City Authority. (2023). Master Plan for the Capital City of Nusantara. Ministry of Public Works and Housing, Republic of Indonesia.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of National Development Planning (2023). Employment Strategies for Nusantara: A Pathway to Sustainable Growth. Eduvest \u0026ndash; Journal of Universal Studies, 4(1), 12\u0026ndash;28. Retrieved from https://eduvest.greenvest.co.id/index.php/edv/article/download/34668/2916/14579\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlobetrender. (2024, November 6). Bhutan is building a \u0026apos;Mindfulness City\u0026apos;. Globetrender. Retrieved from https://globetrender.com/2024/11/06/bhutan-building-mindfulness-city/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUra, K. (2023). The Experience of Gross National Happiness as Development Framework. Journal of Development Studies, 59(4), 748-763.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarag, A. A. (2022). The Story of NEOM City: Opportunities and Challenges. In T. E. Charalampos (Ed.), New Cities and Community Extensions in Global South (pp. 82-97). Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIbrahim, M., Adams, C., \u0026amp; El-Zaart, A. (2023). Analyzing patterns and transitions in smart sustainable cities: A systematic review of the literature. Sustainable Cities and Society, 88, 104325.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLim, M. K., Siow, W. T., \u0026amp; Cheng, C. Y. (2022). New capital, old challenges: A comparative analysis of Nusantara and other planned capital cities. Urban Studies, 59(8), 1520-1540.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaduh, A., Gracner, T., \u0026amp; Rothenberg, A. D. (2022). Life in a slum: Understanding living conditions in Nairobi\u0026apos;s slums across time and space. Oxford Economic Papers, 74(3), 707-730.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCities Alliance. (2013). Effective cities, happy citizens: Bhutan\u0026apos;s national urban development strategy. Cities Alliance. Retrieved from https://www.citiesalliance.org/resources/publications/effective-cities-happy-citizens-bhutan-strategy\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRinzin, C., Vermeulen, W. J., \u0026amp; Glasbergen, P. (2022). Public perceptions of Bhutan\u0026apos;s approach to sustainable development in practice. Sustainable Development, 30(5), 1142-1158.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAljoufie, M., \u0026amp; Tiwari, A. (2015). Climate change adaptations for urban water infrastructure in Jeddah. Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(3), 52\u0026ndash;68. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v8n3p52\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYuliadi, D., Hasibuan, H. S., \u0026amp; Koestoer, R. H. (2023). Blue-green infrastructure in Indonesia\u0026apos;s new capital city: Opportunities and challenges. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1100(1), 012043.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoch, F., \u0026amp; Ahmad, S. (2023). Digital technologies for climate change adaptation in cities: A systematic review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 92, 104523.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchroeder, K., \u0026amp; Pint\u0026eacute;r, L. (2022). Governance for sustainable development: Sustainable development as a matter of choice. Journal of Environmental Policy \u0026amp; Planning, 24(2), 207-222.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSiebert, S. F., \u0026amp; Belsky, J. M. (2006). Reflections on conservation education and practice in Bhutan. Journal of Bhutan Studies, 16(3), 84\u0026ndash;102.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNEOM. (2024). NEOM Sustainability Vision: Redefining Urban Living for a Sustainable Future. NEOM Official Website. Retrieved from https://www.neom.com/en-us/about/our-values/code-of-conduct/our-world/environment\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCosta, C. S., \u0026amp; Lima, I. M. (2022). Nature-based solutions for urban planning: Critical assessment of challenges and opportunities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 226, 104508.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of National Development Planning/National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas). (2021). Indonesia Sustainable Cities Impact Project: Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP). Retrieved from https://lcdi-indonesia.id/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/P173446-SCIP-GEF-Stakeholder-Engagement-Plan-SEP-Rev1-.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBest of Bhutan Tours and Travels. (2024). Gelephu Mindfulness City: A Vision for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://bestofbhutan.com/gelephu-mindfulness-city/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSamarawickrama, S. P., Chowdhury, M. R., \u0026amp; Bordoloi, H. (2023). Climate-resilient urban planning strategies: A comparison of emerging approaches. Urban Climate, 47, 101320.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlqurashi, A. F., \u0026amp; Kumar, L. (2023). Land cover change in Saudi coastal regions and its implications for environmental sustainability. Remote Sensing of Environment, 291, 113427.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJoss, S., \u0026amp; Molella, A. P. (2023). The eco-city as urban technology: Perspectives on global ecocity developments. Journal of Urban Technology, 30(1), 85-106.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFirman, T. (2010). Decentralization reform and local-government proliferation in Indonesia: Towards a fragmentation of regional development. Review of Urban \u0026amp; Regional Development Studies, 22(1), 1\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Biodiversity Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests (2014). National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan of Bhutan 2014. Royal Government of Bhutan. Retrieved from https://dev-chm.cbd.int/doc/world/bt/bt-nbsap-v4-en.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUra, K. (2015). The Experience of Gross National Happiness as Development Framework. ADB South Asia Working Paper Series, No. 42, Asian Development Bank. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/publications/experience-gross-national-happiness-development-framework\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoshashai, D., Leber, A. M., \u0026amp; Savage, J. D. (2020). Saudi Arabia plans for its economic future: Vision 2030, the National Transformation Plan and Saudi fiscal reform. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 47(3), 381\u0026ndash;401. https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2019.1580183\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNusantara Capital City Authority. (2023). Nusantara Net Zero Strategy 2045. Deputy for Environment and Natural Resources. Retrieved from https://ikn.go.id/storage/pedoman-nusantara/3/nusantara-net-zero-strategy-2045-en.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRinzin, C., Vermeulen, W. J., \u0026amp; Glasbergen, P. (2022). Public perceptions of Bhutan\u0026apos;s approach to sustainable development in practice. Sustainable Development, 30(5), 1142-1158.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoser, S., Swain, M., \u0026amp; Alkhabbaz, M. H. (2023). Engineering Saudi Arabia\u0026apos;s post-oil future: Planned cities and sustainability transformations. Cities, 132, 103938.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of National Development Planning (Bappenas). (2024). Housing Development Framework for Nusantara: Addressing Affordability and Inclusivity Challenges. National Development Planning Agency.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBest of Bhutan Tours. (2024). Gelephu Mindfulness City: A Vision for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://bestofbhutan.com/gelephu-mindfulness-city/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaudi Arabia\u0026apos;s Vision 2030: Transforming the Kingdom\u0026apos;s Economy and Society. (2025). Retrieved from https://thebftonline.com/2025/01/21/saudi-arabias-vision-2030-transforming-the-kingdoms-economy-and-society-2/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaputra, R. (2024). Governance Frameworks and Cultural Preservation in Indonesia: Balancing Policy and Heritage. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 11(3), 25\u0026ndash;50. http://dx.doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/2145 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaurene Powell Jobs, A Champion of Gross National Happiness and Bhutan\u0026rsquo;s Gelephu Mindfulness City Initiative. (2025). Retrieved from https://bestofbhutan.com/laurene-powell-jobs-a-champion-of-gnh-and-bhutan/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6434473/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6434473/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a comparative case methodology to analyze sustainability frameworks across three emerging planned cities: Neom (Saudi Arabia), Nusantara (Indonesia), and Gelephu (Bhutan). By examining economic, environmental, and social sustainability dimensions through multiple data sources, we identify how distinct contextual factors shape implementation approaches. The findings reveal divergent pathways toward sustainability based on resource availability, governance systems, and cultural values, while highlighting transferable lessons for future planned urban developments. The study contributes to the growing discourse on sustainable urban development by offering insights into how different contexts shape sustainability outcomes and providing a framework for policymakers and urban planners to enhance sustainability in planned urban environments across diverse global contexts.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Comparative Sustainability Frameworks in Planned Urban Development: Economic, Environmental, and Social Integration in Neom, Nusantara, and Gelephu","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-24 11:51:48","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6434473/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"dbfd61b5-de5c-4560-8859-412e329ab81d","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 24th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":47317207,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Climate sciences"},{"id":47317208,"name":"Social science/Development studies"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-05-31T12:23:24+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-24 11:51:48","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6434473","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6434473","identity":"rs-6434473","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}