How Urban Structure Constrains Sustainable Mobility Choices: Comparison of Copenhagen and Oporto

Abstract

Urban passenger mobility has undergone significant changes over the past few decades with travel patterns becoming increasingly more complex and difficult to predict and manage. There is an extensive discussion in the literature on the interaction of land use and transport and of their combined influence on mobility patterns. However, this vast but somehow disarticulated research field has been, so far, unable to build consensus. There is clearly a need for further research in order to shed light on the intricate web of forces acting on urban structure and travel behaviour to encourage practical implementation of integrated land-use and transport policies. In this paper we discuss how different metropolitan structures constrain mobility choices made available to their inhabitants. The structural accessibility layer was used to analyze the current land-use and transport conditions provided by two distinct metropolitan areas—Greater Copenhagen and Greater Oporto. Urban structure is regarded here as an enabler of travel choices, and its role in mobility management is discussed under this perspective, looking not at how land-use and transport policies can be used to influence travel behaviour but highlighting that these policies are crucial for providing baseline conditions for sustainable travel choices and have a role in constraining unsustainable ones. This analysis reveals the sustainability of mobility choices made available by each urban structure analyzed. Comparison of potential mobility (enabled by urban structure) with actual mobility choices reveals the role of urban structure and of urban planning in mobility management, highlighting its role in enabling desired, and constraining undesired, travel choices.

Social and spatial equity effects of non-motorised accessibility to retail

“…For Zandvliet and Dijst (2006), mobility environments are based on interrelating population characteristics (e.g., mean available income, percentage of residents aged 0-14, families with children) and the time that these groups spend to reach certain activities (e.g., work, shopping, leisure). Studies in Spain and Portugal focused on defining mobility environments as homogeneous geographical units where transport dotation and land use issues (e.g., density and diversity) are specifically interrelated, identifying places with a common mobility identity (e.g., proximity mobility environments vs long-distance mobility environments) (Silva, Reis, & Pinho, 2014; Soria-Lara, Aguilera-Benavente, & Arranz-López, 2016). One relevant example was carried out by (Arranz-López, Soria-Lara, López-Escolano, and Pueyo Campos (2017) who identified and mapped Retail Mobility Environments (RMEs).…”

Urban facilities in the quality of life research: a case study of Banská Bystrica city (Central Slovakia)

“…There is a certain similarity with factors affecting sustainability of a city, such as mixed land use (defined by Haselsteiner et al (2015, p. 8028) as a " [...] close proximity between housing, workplaces, educational institutions, leisure and supply infrastructure or green spaces"), intensity of land use and urban density (in terms of population density and density of buildings), all of them mentioned by e.g. Thompson (2002), Bertolini (2005), Jabareen (2006), Banister (2008), Silva et al (2014), Gillis et al (2015) and Haselsteiner et al (2015). This supports the theory of Massam (2002), Ira and Andráško (2010) and others that QoUL and sustainability of a city are closely linked together.…”

Context-Adapted Urban Planning for Rapid Transitioning of Personal Mobility towards Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review

“…This network of authors is coming from five different countries (with the majority from the United Kingdom) and have diverse expertise: planning, geography, environmental science, social science, and transport science. All together, they create a multidiscipline thought collective that focused on topics discussed above: accessibility [188] and "mobility environments"-another way of combining land-use and mobility planning [97], planning for sustainable mobility [111], challenges of interpretation of goals into indicators [189], dialogue processes among stakeholders [190] and, related to that, integration and creation of knowledge [191]. In several articles, the researchers mention the need for behavioural change and policy implementation in order to create a modal shift away from the current dominance of private cars [192].…”