Environment and Planning B Urban Analytics and City Science· 2026Q1
Evaluating sustainable mobility potential through geographical accessibility and individual access, skills and appropriation
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
A new score combining geographical accessibility and individual motility reveals that 15-minute city concepts may fail if individual capacity to use public transport (PT) is not considered, identifying four area types (+A/+M, +A/-M, -A/+M, -A/-M) for targeted policy interventions.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- A combined score of geographical accessibility and individual motility (access, skills, appropriation) is developed to evaluate sustainable mobility potential.
- The study analyzed the Lake Geneva region, assessing access to goods/services via public transport within 15 and 30 minutes for 10,202 individuals.
- Four distinct area types are identified: high accessibility/high motility (+A/+M), high accessibility/low motility (+A/-M), low accessibility/high motility (-A/+M), and low accessibility/low motility (-A/-M).
- The findings suggest that policy interventions should address both infrastructure (accessibility) and user capacity (motility) for effective sustainable mobility.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
The 15-min city concept promotes accessibility to opportunities notably by encouraging the use of sustainable modes of transport for daily mobility. However, it may not be enough just to provide activities that are accessible via public transport (PT) within 15 minutes if individuals’ capacity to reach them by PT (i.e. their motility) is overlooked. By developing a score that combines geographical accessibility and individual motility, this study aims to better understand the sustainable mobility potential of the Lake Geneva region in terms of reaching goods and services by PT within 15 minutes or 30 minutes, for a time comparison. To calculate the accessibility score, we used the frequency of goods/services visits as a weighting factor, and the human needs that they can satisfy as an attractiveness factor by which to classify the destinations reachable within 15 or 30 minutes from the centroid of 1580 × 1 km 2 cells. Next, based on a self-reported survey of 10,202 individuals in the Lake Geneva region, we created a motility score that captures individuals’ access to PT, their skills in using PT, and their readiness to include activities near their residence in their mobility projects (appropriation). Then, we combine accessibility and motility scores, enabling us to identify four types of areas: with high accessibility and high motility (+A/+M), with high accessibility and low motility (+A/-M), with low accessibility and high motility (-A/+M), and with low accessibility and low motility (-A/-M). By categorising areas in this way, policy priorities can be set out either to improve PT and goods/services provision where accessibility is low, or to support individuals’ motility, enabling them to take advantage of this accessibility effortlessly with sustainable modes of transport.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Environment and Planning B Urban Analytics and City Science, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Transportation
TransportationSocial Sciences