Cities 153 (2024) 105274

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Time to challenge the 15-minute city: Seven pitfalls for sustainability,

equity, livability, and spatial analysis
Kostas Mouratidis
Section for Geography, Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The “15-minute city” concept has been receiving an increasing amount of attention as a model for urban policy as
15-minute city well as a tool for urban spatial analysis. The concept is often considered an urban planning ideal that can
Sustainable cities effectively contribute to improved accessibility and a more sustainable mobility. Through a sustainability, equity,
Livable cities
and livability lens, this paper examines pitfalls of the 15-minute city from a theoretical and spatial analysis
Accessibility
Sustainable mobility
perspective and proposes alternative theoretical and methodological directions. The seven pitfalls of the 15-min­
Compact city ute city in current literature are summarized as: (1) overstatement of the 15-minute city’s originality, (2) strong
decentralization proposed by the 15-minute city theory is unrealistic and unsustainable, (3) focusing on quantity
of destinations instead of sufficiency, (4) improperly aggregating facilities, (5) neglecting diverse forms of nature
and their characteristics, (6) disregarding public transport in 15-minute city theory or spatial analysis, and (7)
ignoring interpersonal differences in walking and cycling when conducting analyses based on the 15-minute city.
A set of strategies is proposed to address these pitfalls and reorient the 15-minute city towards improved
environmental and societal outcomes.

1. Introduction 2020) and can offer economic (Glaeser, 2011; Gössling, Choi, Dekker, &
Metzler, 2019), health (Stevenson et al., 2016), and well-being out­
The idea of the “15-minute city” has been receiving growing interest comes (Mouratidis, 2021b).
as both a framework for urban planning and policy and a tool for The 15-minute city advocates for an urban environment that allows
analyzing urban spaces. The 15-minute city has been defined as a city residents to sufficiently fulfil six needs – living, working, commerce,
“where locals are able to access all of their basic essentials at distances healthcare, education, and entertainment – within a 15-minute walking
that would not take them more than 15 min by foot or by bicycle” or cycling distance from their home thus being able to enjoy a better
(Moreno, Allam, Chabaud, Gall, & Pratlong, 2021). The concept is often quality of life (Moreno et al., 2021). To achieve this, the 15-minute city
seen as an ideal in urban planning that can enhance accessibility and argues that urban development should be based on four key elements
promote sustainable mobility in cities and regions (Allam, Bibri, Cha­ density, proximity, diversity, and digitalization (Moreno et al., 2021).
baud, & Moreno, 2022; Moreno et al., 2021). Despite a growing interest in the concept, an in-depth critical
Indeed, similarly to urban planning models such as the compact city, assessment of the 15-minute city as a theory and a spatial analytical tool
the 15-minute city proposes a sufficiently dense, mixed use, walkable is missing. As part of overviews of the concept, studies have presented
urban form which would enhance the distribution of opportunities and critiques on issues such as physical determinism, lack of consideration
enable proximity-based accessibility. This type of urban form and for housing issues, and possible gentrification implications (e.g. Kha­
accessibility can help reduce car-dependency, reduce travel distances, varian-Garmsir, Sharifi, & Sadeghi, 2023). There is a lack of systematic,
and promote the use of more environmentally friendly and equitable in-depth assessments of limitations and challenges. As a result, there are
travel modes (Handy, 2020; Levine, 2020). Thus, it seems to be in line numerous recent empirical research studies as well as policy documents
with the goals of achieving reduced transport-generated emissions that might uncritically use the 15-minute city as a framework for anal­
(Creutzig et al., 2015; Næss, 2012; Newman & Kenworthy, 2021), sus­ ysis and policy. Without identifying and addressing the pitfalls of the 15-
tainable mobility (Banister, 2008; Næss, 2020), mobility justice (Mar­ minute city, we run the risk of further delays in reaching environmental
tens, 2016; Sheller, 2018), and urban vitality (Mouratidis & Poortinga, and societal goals.

E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105274
Received 29 January 2024; Received in revised form 12 May 2024; Accepted 5 July 2024
Available online 15 July 2024
0264-2751/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K. Mouratidis Cities 153 (2024) 105274

It is time to scrutinize the 15-minute city. Through a sustainability, network that enables ease of movement and accessibility.
equity, and livability lens, this paper examines pitfalls of the 15-minute This type of organization of human settlements is certainly not new.
city in recent literature, both from a theoretical and spatial analytical We can observe this by looking at the history of urban planning, urban
perspective. Subsequently, the paper proposes alternative theoretical theory, and empirical urban research.
and methodological directions that address current pitfalls. The aim is Looking at the history of urban planning, we observe this type of or­
not to discard or “retire” the concept, but to critically assess it, shed light ganization of space even in prehistoric human settlements. A good early
on challenges, and bring forward a new debate on how to reorient the example of this can be found in the prehistoric city of Akrotiri, located
15-minute city’s theoretical and analytical approaches towards on the island of Santorini, Greece, which has been preserved in a rela­
improved environmental and societal outcomes. tively good condition due to volcanic eruption. This city was charac­
The structure of the remainder of the paper is as follows. Section 2 terized by a dense urban form (considering technology of the epoch), a
explains the methodological approach of the paper. Sections 3.1–3.7 walkable, dense, interconnected street network, and a mix of residences,
present the seven pitfalls of the 15-minute city and propose strategies for shops, and public spaces. All these elements together allowed residents
addressing them. Section 4 summarizes the seven pitfalls and relevant to reach essential destinations within a few minutes’ walk. Ancient cit­
theoretical and methodological directions. Section 5 presents ies, medieval cities, and industrial cities also followed similar urban
concluding remarks. form patterns, incorporating additional land uses as economy and cul­
ture evolved and becoming more vertical as building technology
2. Methods advanced. What greatly disrupted this proximity-oriented planning (the
term “chrono-urbanism” is also used in the 15-minute city terminology)
This paper is based on a qualitative narrative review of literature on was the rise of the car that started in the 1920s in the USA and around
the 15-minute city. The purpose of the paper is to deepen understanding the 1950s in other regions of the world (Hall & Barrett, 2018). The car
on urban theory and spatial analysis and provide interpretation and enabled the adoption of modernist planning ideals and allowed residents
critique, so a narrative review method is appropriate (Greenhalgh, to cover greater distances to reach destinations. Thus, the ever-present
Thorne, & Malterud, 2018). The aim is not to offer an exhaustive review principles of urban development started to become gradually aban­
of all studies related to the 15-minute city, so naturally some studies doned in several parts of the world. To sum up, the basic elements of the
were omitted. Approximately 100 studies were analyzed. The review 15-minute city were evident in urban development from prehistoric
mainly focused on articles published in English in international peer- times until proximity-oriented urban planning declined during the 20th
reviewed journals. Literature search in scientific databases was the century.
primary method for identifying literature. As a secondary method, Looking at urban theory, we observe that the core ideas behind this
backward snowballing was performed to identify relevant studies not type of organization of urban space have been proposed and studied
found in the primary literature search. since the early times of urban scholarly literature. The “Neighborhood
The literature was qualitatively analyzed to identify pitfalls of the Unit” concept proposed by Perry (1929) around a century ago advocated
15-minute city as a theoretical concept and spatial analysis tool. The for organizing cities based on neighborhood units which include schools,
analysis focused on the core of the concept as theory and analytical tool, green and open spaces, shops, and community centers thus providing a
and not on preconditions, implementation, or impacts of the 15-minute certain degree of self-sufficiency and walkability. Later on, several urban
city. Thus, issues related to planning processes (e.g. participation), theorists criticized modernist planning ideals and argued for going back
public acceptance (e.g. public critiques), implementation (e.g. barriers to traditional ways of organizing cities and neighborhoods (Dantzig &
and enablers for implementation), and policy implications (e.g. housing, Saaty, 1973; Duany, Plater-Zyberk, & Speck, 2001; Gehl, 2013; A. Ja­
gentrification) were excluded from the analysis. Naturally, urban form, cobs & Appleyard, 1987; J. Jacobs, 1961; Krier, 2009; Salingaros, 2006).
accessibility, and mobility were at the heart of the analysis. The iden­ The 15-minute city is a continuation of this evolving trend (Khavarian-
tified pitfalls were categorized in seven common themes, named here Garmsir, Sharifi, Hajian Hossein Abadi, & Moradi, 2023).
“the seven pitfalls of the 15-minute city”. The goals of sustainability, To summarize their ideas into a single concept, urban theorists and
equity, and livability have been used as a basis for scrutinizing and researchers have coined terms such as the “Compact City” (Dantzig &
discussing the seven identified pitfalls. Saaty, 1973), “The City Within the City” (Krier, 1977), “New Urbanism”
(Duany et al., 2001), “Cities for People” (Gehl, 2013), “Walkable
3. Seven pitfalls of the 15-minute city Neighborhood” (Moudon et al., 2006) and “Compact, Walkable, Diverse
(CWD) Neighborhoods” (Talen & Koschinsky, 2014). The “Compact
3.1. Originality City” focuses on the city scale and proposes an urban form characterized
by high-density, mixed land uses, and public transport (Dantzig & Saaty,
The first pitfall of the 15-minute city is the possible overstatement of 1973; Neuman, 2005). The “City within the City” shifts attention to
its originality. Is there indeed something new in this concept or is it neighborhood planning and argues for self-sufficient neighborhoods
simply a recirculation of preexisting urban planning ideas under a that integrate essential urban functions within walking distance (Krier,
different brand name? This is a question on many people’s lips that has 1977). “New Urbanism” provides a holistic framework for urban
not been comprehensively answered. To understand if there is some­ development in the US that aims to counter car dependency and urban
thing new in the concept, let us first explore what is not new and then sprawl through a return to more traditional neighborhood planning and
explore potentially original elements. transit-oriented development (Duany et al., 2001; Grant, 2005). The
concept of “Cities for People” argues for the need to abandon car-
3.1.1. What is not new? oriented mobility and urban design, which have led to urban spaces
The backbone of the 15-minute city as a concept is that residents made for the car and not for pedestrians, and urges urban development
should be able to access essential destinations within a 15-minute walk to return to human-scale urban spaces and active mobility (Gehl, 2013).
(or bike ride) from their home (Moreno et al., 2021). But what is needed The concepts of “Walkable Neighborhoods” and “Compact, Walkable,
to achieve this? In short, cities need to be organized as neighborhoods and Diverse Neighborhoods” both suggest that increased levels of
that (a) are sufficiently dense to provide demand for a variety of facil­ walkability and urban vitality can be reached through neighborhood
ities and services through a sufficient population living in close prox­ planning that is based on higher densities, proximity to facilities, and
imity, (b) are characterized by a land use mix that allows the placement street connectivity (Moudon et al., 2006; Talen & Koschinsky, 2014).
of a range of facilities, services, and spaces within a walkable neigh­ Despite several nuanced differences in these concepts, their main ideas
borhood, and (c) contain a walkable, dense, interconnected street on urban form revolve around a sufficient level of density, mixed land

2
K. Mouratidis Cities 153 (2024) 105274

uses, street connectivity, and walkability, all of which are very much in itself as an urban policy that communicates an attractive, easy to grasp,
line with the principles of the 15-minute city. precise, and measurable outcome to the public. This outcome lies in the
We realize that the 15-minute city’s overall idea of planning by name of the concept itself. Just by reading or hearing “the 15-minute
neighborhoods and designing them based on proximity is not original. city”, politicians, policymakers, professionals, and the general public
However, there is a nuanced difference between the 15-minute city and can clearly understand what it wants to achieve and can grasp what are
most other relevant theoretical approaches. This is decentralization and the potential benefits. Other concept names either focus on urban form
polycentricity. The 15-minute city emphasizes that residents should be rather than the outcome (e.g. compact city; compact, walkable, and
able to cover their essential needs – living, working, commerce, diverse neighborhood; city within the city) or focus on an outcome that
healthcare, education, and entertainment – within a 15-minute walking is not so precise or easy to grasp (e.g. new urbanism; cities for people).
(or biking) distance. Although this goal is quite idealistic and probably Therefore, they become “brands” that are more academic and forget­
unsustainable as discussed in a later section, it distinguishes the 15-min­ table or less attractive for the general public. Conversely, the popularity
ute city from other theoretical approaches which imply that residents of the 15-minute city in public debate may be attributed to, among other
should be able to cover only some of their needs within the factors, the originality of name of the concept. This successful concept
neighborhood. name, together with relevant policies applied in one of the world’s most
We should still note that covering essential needs within a 15-minute recognizable cities, Paris, France, might have enhanced its popularity as
walk is not an “invention” of the 15-minute city. It had been already well as the acceptability of policy interventions. The application of the
proposed by Leon Krier in the 1970s and possibly other urban theorists. concept in policymaking in Paris has possibly contributed to a snowball
Specifically, Krier suggested organizing cities in “quarters” (neighbor­ effect, with the 15-minute city and related variants being applied in or
hoods): “Each quarter must be a city within a city. The quarter must advocated by many other cities in Europe, Asia Pacific, and North
integrate all daily functions of urban life (dwelling, working, leisure) America.
within a territory dimensioned on the basis of the comfort of a walking
person” (Krier, 1977). Krier’s idea of a city within a city very much 3.2. Decentralization and polycentricity
resembles the 15-minute city. They both emphasize what seems to be an
absolute decentralization of activities and thus strongly polycentric The 15-minute city advocates for a type of decentralization that can
urban development whereas other approaches, e.g. the compact city and be considered unrealistic, unnatural, and unsustainable. It distinguishes
the walkable neighborhood, rely on decentralization only of activities itself from other theoretical approaches and policy ideals that focus on
pertaining to low-order services. We could conclude that the 15-minute density, diversity, proximity, and walkability by emphasizing the idea of
city is similar to a human-scale compact city (Allam, Chabaud, Gall, self-sufficiency, similar to the concept of a city within a city by Krier
Pratlong, & Moreno, 2023; Handy, 2020), but strongly decentralized as (1977). To achieve a self-sufficient neighborhood in which residents
proposed by Krier (1977) in his “City within the City” idea. A critique of would be able to cover their needs in terms of living, working, com­
this strong decentralization idea is presented in subsection 3.2 below. merce, healthcare, education, and entertainment within walking or
Looking at empirical urban research, we observe that a great number cycling distance as proposed by the 15-minuty city (Moreno et al.,
of studies have conducted research using an analytical approach based 2021), a high degree of decentralization of facilities and services would
on accessibility by proximity and/or walkable distances before the year be needed. If this could be potentially achieved, it would result in a
2020 and the emergence of the latest empirical research that uses the 15- strongly polycentric development.
minute city as an analytical tool. The idea of the neighborhood being This highly decentralized approach is unrealistic as it disregards the
considered and analyzed as the area within a 15-minute (or other basic hierarchy of urban centers and services. For example, obviously,
variant) walk from people’s home has been present in a series of urban primary healthcare can be distributed in a relatively compact city so that
and transport studies conducted before 2020. These studies focus on the residents have access to a general practitioner, a pharmacy, and a dentist
relationship between the built environment and diverse outcomes such within walking distance from their home. However, this is an unrealistic
as: travel behavior (Giles-Corti et al., 2013; Handy, Cao, & Mokhtarian, expectation for secondary and, even more, tertiary healthcare provision.
2006; Næss, 2011), walkability (Cerin, Saelens, Sallis, & Frank, 2006; It is not economically viable to expect to have a hospital or all types of
Moudon et al., 2006; Shashank & Schuurman, 2019), physical activity highly specialized medical services in close proximity to everyone’s
(Forsyth, Michael Oakes, Lee, & Schmitz, 2009; McGinn, Evenson, homes even in dense, mixed use, walkable cities. The same is applied to
Herring, Huston, & Rodriguez, 2007; Sallis et al., 2016), neighborhood education and a series of other facilities and services that are charac­
satisfaction (Cao, 2016; Howley, Scott, & Redmond, 2009; Mouratidis, terized by a hierarchy. Childcare, kindergarten, primary schools, and
2018b, 2020), activity participation (Nordbø, Raanaas, Nordh, & secondary schools can be part of a 15-minute neighborhood, but it is
Aamodt, 2019), travel preferences (Frank, Saelens, Powell, & Chapman, unrealistic to expect the same for a university. This criticism is relevant
2007), livability (Higgs, Badland, Simons, Knibbs, & Giles-Corti, 2019), to earlier criticisms of rigid neighborhood planning that sees neigh­
and subjective well-being (Kyttä, Broberg, Haybatollahi, & Schmidt- borhoods as fully self-sufficient, independent units (Mehaffy, Porta, &
Thomé, 2016; Mouratidis, 2019b). These studies rely on analyses of built Romice, 2015; Sharifi, 2016). To address these issues, urban scholars
environment characteristics – e.g. density, facilities, and green spaces – have argued that the concept of the neighborhood is not static as the
within a walkable distance (such as 500 m, 800 m, or 1 km) from peo­ zone of one’s activity in the city varies based on the type of destination
ple’s dwellings and/or use a 15-minute walking distance around peo­ (Marans & Rodgers, 1975; Park & Rogers, 2015).
ple’s dwelling as a definition of the neighborhood in questionnaire Related to this, in an era of labor hyperspecialization, it is also un­
surveys. We should also highlight that some scholars, instead of using realistic to expect all residents to be able to access their workplaces within a
circular buffers, based their analysis on walkable 15-minute network 15-minute walk or bike ride from their homes. This is particularly the
buffers around each residential location (Frank et al., 2006; Frank et al., case in larger cities where distances are longer and specialized jobs are
2007; Higgs et al., 2019; Moudon et al., 2006; Moura, Cambra, & in abundance. For economic, cultural, and family reasons it is often
Gonçalves, 2017), exactly as done in recent studies using the 15-minute impossible for all or even one member of the household to undertake a
city as an analytical tool. specialized job in proximity to their home. Even for less specialized jobs,
the highly competitive and dynamic job market makes the idea of people
3.1.2. What is new? living in proximity to their workplace difficult to achieve. Finally, latest
Based on the above, the 15-minute city is not original as a concept or trends in the 15-minute city paradigm suggest that digitalization could
basis for analysis. The main novel element in the 15-minute city is that be a strategy for the provision of virtual access to jobs or services thus
contrary to most relevant concepts and ideals, the 15-minute city brands reducing travel time (Moreno et al., 2021). However, although, indeed,

3
K. Mouratidis Cities 153 (2024) 105274

online activities and telework have been on the rise compared to pre- or specific facilities are contained within 15-minute (or other variant)
pandemic times, a great number of citizens do not and will not have walkable neighborhoods (isochrones) (e.g. Staricco, 2022). Then they
the opportunity to work or perform other activities virtually (Guzman, present maps and statistics based on the number of facilities per
Arellana, Oviedo, & Moncada Aristizábal, 2021; Mouratidis, 2021a; neighborhood for different categories (e.g. education, healthcare,
Mouratidis & Papagiannakis, 2021). entertainment). Researchers and readers might be inclined to think that
The highly decentralized approach of the 15-minute city is prob­ 15-minute city neighborhoods are those with a high number of facilities
lematic not only because it is unrealistic and unviable but also because it for each category. However, although numerous facilities in close
is unnatural. The city is a highly complex system which comes in proximity naturally offer greater accessibility to different potential
contrast with the human mind that wants to oversimplify and over- choices, we should question whether this is completely in line with self-
organize it. The activities of people within the city will always be dispersed sufficiency.
to some degree. People will always visit other neighborhoods to cover Maximizing facilities in one’s neighborhood does not guarantee urban
some of their needs, even if relevant facilities and services are provided livability for all residents in all contexts. Studies suggest that numerous
within their own neighborhoods (Mouratidis, 2018a, 2019a). As Chris­ facilities may be conducive to neighborhood satisfaction in some cities
topher Alexander had argued, the natural city is not a “tree” but a “semi- but not in others (Mouratidis & Yiannakou, 2022). It is natural that not
lattice” (Alexander, 1965). In other words, a city cannot be organized all residents prefer and enjoy a vibrant city lifestyle (Gehrke, Singleton,
based on an unnatural separation of activities within rigid neighbor­ & Clifton, 2019; McCrea, Shyy, & Stimson, 2014). A diversity of levels of
hoods but as a complex system of interconnected neighborhoods of urban vitality in neighborhoods is then recommended to accommodate
different spatial scales (Alexander, 1965). different preferences.
Transport-generated emissions and climate change mitigation are also The critical question then is whether a 15-minute city is the one that
major concerns when it comes to the 15-minute city’s support for strong offers accessibility by proximity to a sufficient number of facilities or to a
decentralization at the city or urban metropolitan scale. Decentralizing great number of facilities. There are studies that adopt the sufficiency
higher-order facilities/services and specialized, labor-intensive or approach measuring distances or access to one facility for each category
visitor-intensive jobs and not placing them close to the main center of (e.g. Calafiore, Dunning, Nurse, & Singleton, 2022; Logan et al., 2022).
the city or metropolitan area may lead to increased transport volumes, But if sufficiency is the goal, the next question that emerges is what is
increased share of private motorized travel modes, and increased considered sufficient and for whom. Is, for example, one supermarket
greenhouse gases (Næss, 2020, 2022). This is because, as previous enough or should neighborhoods offer a wider variety of grocery stores
studies show, inevitably not everyone will live close to these specialized to offer a wide range of choices and cover diverse preferences? And how
destinations so a large proportion of residents will need to cover longer many would be sufficient? Capacity should also be considered. There
distances and may also be more tempted or forced to use a car to reach might be a school or kindergarten within a 15-minute walking distance,
these destinations, compared to the scenario of having these destina­ but the demand may exceed the capacity. How can we include capacity
tions placed in the center of the city (Næss, 2020, 2022). In other words, in 15-minute city empirical analyses? Ultimately, the next question is on
polycentric intra-metropolitan workplace development seems to be in quality. Sufficiency is not just a question of quantity but also of quality.
contrast with the principles of sustainable mobility (Næss, 2020; Wol­ How can quality considerations be integrated when using the 15-minute
day, Naess, & Tønnesen, 2019). This level of decentralization may thus city as an analytical tool? Subjective evaluations might be useful in that
hinder the 15-minute city’s goals for low carbon emissions and climate regard. These are important issues to consider in future research on the
change mitigation. Obviously in very large metropolitan areas, a highly 15-minute city but also urban spatial analysis in general.
monocentric placement of high-order facilities/services and specialized
workplaces is not a viable solution due to land use and traffic consid­ 3.4. Aggregating facilities
erations (Arribas-Bel & Sanz-Gracia, 2014; Bentlage, Müller, & Thier­
stein, 2021), but the strongly decentralized solution proposed by the 15- A common pitfall when using the 15-minute city as a tool for spatial
minute city is also neither viable nor environmentally friendly. analysis concerns the aggregation versus disaggregation of facilities (or
Nevertheless, although it is not realistic to expect neighborhoods to places, services, and points of interest). Studies often aggregate access to
be completely self-sufficient, we need to note that dispersing lower- facilities into large categories or composite indices (Akrami, Sliwa, &
order facilities and services such as schools, kindergartens, general Rynning, 2024; Bartzokas-Tsiompras & Bakogiannis, 2023; Birkenfeld,
practitioners, community centers, and non-specialized shops throughout Victoriano-Habit, Alousi-Jones, Soliz, & El-Geneidy, 2023; Guzman
the city may reduce travel distances and motorized travel (Barnett, et al., 2021; Murgante, Patimisco, & Annunziata, 2024; Olivari,
Barnett, Nathan, Van Cauwenberg, & Cerin, 2017; Ewing & Cervero, Cipriano, Napolitano, & Giovannini, 2023; Staricco, 2022). For
2010; Kärmeniemi, Lankila, Ikäheimo, Koivumaa-Honkanen, & Korpe­ example, one may aggregate facilities into categories such as healthcare
lainen, 2018; Y. Wang, Chau, Ng, & Leung, 2016) and enable people to (e.g. health centers, pharmacies, hospitals, clinics), education (e.g. pri­
comfortably cover certain essential needs while increasing access to mary schools, secondary schools, kindergartens), and recreation (e.g.
opportunities (Mouratidis et al., 2024). So, dispersing lower-order fa­ green spaces, sports facilities, cultural facilities, places for eating and
cilities and services can be an effective strategy towards sustainable drinking) or may aggregate facilities as all points of interest in a
mobility, social equity, and improved quality of life (Mouratidis, 2021a, particular area or buffer zone.
2021b). In other words, interpreting the 15-minute city’s seemingly This approach can, in certain contexts, provide a good proxy for
unattainable goal of self-sufficiency more loosely, and not to the walkability, land use mix, and urban vitality (Liao, van den Berg, van
extreme, would certainly bring several benefits. Wesemael, & Arentze, 2020; Mouratidis & Poortinga, 2020). Specif­
ically, aggregating facilities into general categories such as commercial,
3.3. Quantity versus sufficiency healthcare, and education in spatial analysis can be useful to obtain an
overview of how dispersed a type of facility is within a city. Moreover,
When the 15-minute city is used as an analytical tool, researchers aggregating various types of facilities or points of interest enables ana­
and analysts may run into challenges pertaining to questions of quantity lysts to develop walkability indices that provide an indication of the
versus sufficiency. Although the 15-minute city as a concept argues for number of potential destinations to be reached within walkable dis­
covering one’s needs within the neighborhood, empirical research might tance. Finally, since aggregated facilities are a proxy for potential des­
misuse the concept by viewing a 15-minute neighborhood as one that tinations, they may also provide a good indication of the level of human
includes a great number of possible destinations as opposed to a sufficient activity in the streets. However, there are two important issues that need
number of destinations. Studies may analyze how many points of interest to be considered when aggregating facilities in 15-minute city spatial

4
K. Mouratidis Cities 153 (2024) 105274

analyses. sustainability goals since, as discussed in subsection 3.2, covering all

The first issue is the lack of precision when spatial analysis is used for essential needs through proximity-based accessibility is not always
assessing accessibility and socio-spatial equity. For example, aggre­ possible. Public transport modes such as buses, trams, subway trains,
gating healthcare facilities into a common healthcare category does not and suburban trains are vital options for medium and long distances
provide insight into accessibility to a physician, a dentist, or a pharmacy. often required to reach workplaces, other neighborhoods, and high-
Accessibility to each of these services is important for covering essential order facilities and services. Thus, public transport should be consid­
needs within the neighborhood, therefore they should be disaggregated ered if a holistic assessment of accessibility and equity is intended.
when relevant data are available. Naturally, keeping all types of facil­ For a more robust assessment of accessibility provided by public
ities disaggregated would not be a fruitful approach as it would make the transport, in addition to the presence of a single public transport stop
analysis extremely detailed or even meaningless. Researchers are chal­ within walking distance, researchers could explore supplementary in­
lenged to consider an adequate level of aggregating facilities. dicators. Both accessibility to and by public transport could be included.
The second issue is the inclusion of higher-order facilities when aggre­ The density of local public transport stops is an indicator of accessibility
gating facilities. As explained in section 3 on decentralization, expecta­ to public transport (Twardzik, Falvey, Clarke, Freedman, & Schrack,
tions of 15-minute walking access to higher-order facilities such as 2023; J. Wang & Cao, 2017). Moreover, measures of service frequency
hospitals, universities, airports, and museums are unrealistic. Therefore, (Bree, Fuller, & Diab, 2020; Mavoa, Witten, McCreanor, & O’Sullivan,
such facilities should be excluded from spatial analysis focusing on 2012; Mouratidis & Poortinga, 2020) as well as accessibility to potential
human needs covered within a walkable distance. destinations (Lunke, 2022; Viguié, Liotta, Pfeiffer, & Coulombel, 2023)
are indicators of accessibility by public transport.
3.5. Urban nature
3.7. Walking and cycling
Urban nature has a weak presence in the 15-minute city literature.
The 15-minute city theory approaches urban nature mainly in the form Walking and cycling are the travel modes that define the 15-minute
of proximity-based accessibility to parks (Khavarian-Garmsir et al., city. The 15-minute city is the city where residents can access places,
2023; Moreno et al., 2021). Similarly, empirical studies that use the 15- facilities, and services on foot or by bicycle to cover their essential needs.
minute city as an analytical tool typically focus on whether one has This mode-based definition creates several challenges for researchers
access to a park in close proximity (e.g. Olivari et al., 2023). Diverse and policymakers.
forms of urban nature as well as their qualitative characteristics are usually The first challenge is defining the walking speed based on which resi­
disregarded in both theoretical and empirical 15-minute city studies. dents would be able to access destinations in 15 min. A comfortable
Besides public parks, other forms of nature such as gardens, forests, and walking speed and the potential to cover distances or make multiple
vegetation, but also blue spaces such as ocean, sea, rivers, or lakes offer trips differ among people with different characteristics such as age,
important environmental and societal benefits (Gascon et al., 2015; household type, gender, and health status (Bohannon & Williams
Markevych et al., 2017; Mouratidis, 2019c; Nieuwenhuijsen, 2020; Andrews, 2011; Kwan, 1998; Manaugh & El-Geneidy, 2011; Morency,
Nowak, Greenfield, Hoehn, & Lapoint, 2013; Roy, Byrne, & Pickering, Paez, Roorda, Mercado, & Farber, 2011; Moura et al., 2017; Ventura &
2012; Song, Tan, Edwards, & Richards, 2018). Hodges, 2023). Activities performed while walking, e.g. carrying gro­
It is recommended to consider – in theory, empirical research, and ceries or a baby stroller, may also influence walking speed (Ventura &
practice – different types of green spaces as well as their size and, if Hodges, 2023). Therefore, when designing 15-minute neighborhoods,
possible, their qualitative characteristics (de Vries, Nieuwenhuizen, planners and policymakers need to consider sufficiently low walking
Farjon, van Hinsberg, & Dirkx, 2021; Latinopoulos, 2022; Mouratidis, speeds that provide inclusive and equitable accessibility. A low walking
2021b; Stessens, Canters, Huysmans, & Khan, 2020; Zhang, Van den speed should be as inclusive as possible. In other words, it needs to
Berg, Van Dijk, & Weitkamp, 2017). It is also meaningful to assess accommodate to the extent possible different personal characteristics
vegetation and tree cover using vegetation indices (e.g. normalized and activities. These considerations could also guide spatial analysis
difference vegetation index (NDVI)) and tree canopy cover (e.g. Hans­ based on the 15-minute city.
sen, Barton, Venter, Nowell, & Cimburova, 2021). Vegetation, including The second challenge is whether we should consider cycling an “in­
trees, is not only present in parks, forests, and gardens but also in streets clusive enough” travel mode, based on which a community’s essential
and other open spaces. Moreover, vegetation and tree cover vary in needs will be covered. Obviously, cycling is an environmentally friendly
different green and open spaces. Finally, due to its multiple benefits and socially equitable travel mode that brings multiple benefits related
(Hooyberg et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2021; White, Elliott, Gascon, Rob­ to environmental sustainability, climate change mitigation, public
erts, & Fleming, 2020) the presence of blue space could also be health, well-being, local economy, and mobility justice (Gössling et al.,
considered when analyzing, theorizing, or discussing proximity-based 2019; McQueen, MacArthur, & Cherry, 2020; Mueller et al., 2017).
accessibility to (urban) nature. Cycling should therefore be promoted as one of the principal travel
modes in a livable, equitable, and environmentally friendly city. More­
3.6. Public transport and accessibility over, cycling using e-bikes provides an alternative to traditional cycling
by enabling trips of longer distance, requiring less effort, and helping
Since the 15-minute city aims to cover essential needs within a 15- counter issues of topography (Ballo, de Freitas, Meister, & Axhausen,
minute walkable or bikeable distance, public transport modes are not 2023). Spatial analysis of bicycle accessibility can provide insight into
typically viewed as components of its theoretical foundations. Following the bicycle planning and policy (Knap, Ulak, Geurs, Mulders, & van der
15-minute city theory, many empirical studies, reasonably, do not Drift, 2023). However, we should acknowledge that not everyone is
consider public transport in their analyses (e.g. Akrami et al., 2024; able, fit, or comfortable to cycle. Bicycle use depends on personal
Bartzokas-Tsiompras & Bakogiannis, 2023; Murgante et al., 2024; Oli­ characteristics such as age and health status as well as personal cir­
vari et al., 2023; Staricco, 2022). Some other studies interpret more cumstances and preferences (Heinen, van Wee, & Maat, 2010). Thus,
loosely the principles of the 15-minute city and still choose to consider designing neighborhoods with a focus on accessibility by bicycle ex­
public transport when analyzing accessibility (e.g. Calafiore et al., 2022; cludes those not able, fit, or comfortable to cycle. This would lead to
Di Marino, Tomaz, Henriques, & Chavoshi, 2023; Liu, Kwan, & Wang, mobility-based social exclusion (Bruno & van Oort, 2023) and should
2024; Sdoukopoulos, Papadopoulos, Verani, & Politis, 2024; Vich, therefore be avoided.
Gómez-Varo, & Marquet, 2023). The third challenge is that a walking-based definition of the 15-min­
Public transport is necessary to reach environmental and social ute city excludes those who are not able to walk. In an inclusive, equitable

5
K. Mouratidis Cities 153 (2024) 105274

city it is essential to design neighborhoods also for those who have minute spatial analyses much before the recent rise of the 15-minute city
special mobility needs and may use a wheelchair, electric mobility concept.
scooter, or some other mode to access destinations. Overall, we should The second pitfall is that the strong decentralization proposed by the 15-
acknowledge that accessibility depends on interpersonal differences and minute city theory is neither realistic nor sustainable (subsection 3.2).
then integrate this consideration into 15-minute city theory as well as Moving forward, it is important to first acknowledge this challenge and
urban spatial analysis. rethink the degree of self-sufficiency within the neighborhood. What
should be clarified is which exact needs would be met through
4. Theoretical and methodological directions proximity-based accessibility, but also whose needs would be met and to
what extent. Providing proximity-based accessibility to lower-order fa­
Summarizing the above, we can identify seven overall pitfalls in the cilities, services, and places such as parks, public spaces, schools, kin­
15-minute city as a theory and as a spatial analysis tool (Fig. 1). These dergartens, general practitioners, community centers, and non-
pitfalls have emerged considering the goals of sustainability, livability, specialized shops is a realistic and sustainable option that could bring
and equity in urban and transport planning and policy. The seven pitfalls environmental and societal benefits.
of the 15-minute city identified in this paper can be summarized as: (1) The third pitfall is the possible focus on quantity instead of sufficiency
overstatement of the 15-minute city’s originality, (2) strong decentral­ when applying the 15-minute city in spatial analysis and policymaking
ization proposed by the 15-minute city theory is neither environmen­ (subsection 3.3). This challenge could be addressed in three comple­
tally sustainable nor economically viable, (3) focusing on quantity of mentary ways. First, it needs to be acknowledged that residents have
destinations instead of sufficiency, (4) improperly aggregating facilities, different preferences and not all residents thrive in vibrant neighbor­
(5) neglecting diverse forms of nature and their characteristics, (6) hoods with numerous facilities and services. Second, instead of trying to
disregarding public transport in 15-minute city theory or spatial anal­ maximize facilities and services in proximity, analyses could be reor­
ysis, and (7) ignoring interpersonal differences in walking and cycling iented towards identifying areas with no or very low proximity-based
when conducting analyses based on the 15-minute city. accessibility to important lower-order facilities and services. The ca­
To address these pitfalls, a set of theoretical and methodological pacity of existing facilities and services in relation to the local needs
directions are proposed. An overview of these theoretical and method­ should be taken into account, if possible, in such analyses. Subsequently,
ological directions is presented in Fig. 2 and described in the paragraphs this lack of accessibility would need to be addressed through local pol­
below. These directions are not hands-on guidelines on addressing icies and interventions. Third, spatial analysis could consider residents’
identified challenges; researchers and practitioners will need to find preferences and evaluations of the quality of facilities, services, and
ways to operationalize them based on the purpose, context, and data places and integrate them into proximity-based accessibility assessments
availability. (Guzman, Oviedo, & Cantillo-Garcia, 2024; Kyttä et al., 2016; Marans,
The first pitfall is the overstatement of the 15-minute city’s originality 2003; Mouratidis, 2018c).
(subsection 3.1). The aim of raising this issue is not to devalue the The fourth pitfall is the improper aggregation of facilities in 15-minute
concept due to non-originality. Raising this issue serves two purposes. city spatial analysis (subsection 3.4). To address this, it is important to
The first is to inform researchers and the general public about the history keep essential facilities separate when carrying out spatial analysis. For
of urban theory and practice and the second is to give recognition to the example, if available data allow, it would be meaningful to separate
work of previous scholars and thinkers. It is essential to acknowledge primary schools, secondary schools, and kindergartens when assessing
and be aware that the 15-minute city is almost identical to Krier’s (1977) accessibility to education and general practitioners, pharmacies, and
“City within the City” that argues for neighborhoods that “integrate all dentists when assessing accessibility to primary healthcare. Moreover, it
daily functions of urban life (dwelling, working, leisure) within a terri­ is essential to ensure that higher-order facilities such as hospitals, uni­
tory dimensioned on the basis of the comfort of a walking person”. It is versities, airports, and museums are excluded from spatial analysis
also fair to recognize the work of several scholars who have applied 15- focusing on human needs covered within a walkable distance.
The fifth pitfall is the neglect of diverse forms of urban nature and their
characteristics (subsection 3.5). Theory, research, and practice related to
the 15-minute city could consider the presence and accessibility not only
to public parks but also to other forms of nature such as gardens, forests,
trees, and vegetation in general, but also blue spaces such as ocean, sea,
rivers, or lakes, all of which offer important environmental and societal
benefits. Moreover, in addition to the simple presence of urban nature,
which is by itself important, the 15-minute city could integrate other
assessments as well, when data are available. Tree canopy cover and
vegetation indices could provide indications of the actual presence and
state of vegetation in urban areas. It would also be meaningful to assess
the size of blue and green spaces since spaces of different sizes have
different environmental and societal impacts. Finally, qualitative char­
acteristics of urban nature can be obtained through users’ input
including preferences, aesthetic quality, frequency and purpose of use,
safety, and maintenance among others. Such data can be collected, for
example, via surveys, social media, or public participation geographic
information systems (PPGIS). Data from all these assessments could then
be employed in spatial analysis to assess accessibility to urban nature in
a more holistic way.
The sixth pitfall is disregarding public transport in 15-minute city theory
and subsequently spatial analysis and policy (subsection 3.6). Public
transport, which is essential for traveling medium and long distances
within urban regions, is certainly compatible with proximity-based
accessibility proposed by the 15-minute city, so a revised version of
Fig. 1. The seven pitfalls of the 15-minute city. the 15-minute city could emphasize how proximity-based planning and

6
K. Mouratidis Cities 153 (2024) 105274

Fig. 2. Theoretical and methodological directions for addressing the seven pitfalls of the 15-minute city.

public transport may complement each other. In spatial analysis, it 5. Conclusions

would be meaningful to consider both accessibility to and by public
transport. The 15-minute city is a concept that has successfully contributed to
The seventh pitfall is ignoring interpersonal differences in walking and popularizing issues of urban accessibility, equitable access, sustainable
cycling (subsection 3.7). Considering those not being able, fit, or mobility, and urban livability in public debate and policymaking. It has
comfortable walking or cycling is crucial for avoiding mobility-based created a wave of supporters wishing to return to a compact, human-
social exclusion in a 15-minute city. Neighborhoods would need to be scale, walkable, and diverse urban form that reduces the need for
designed to provide a certain degree of accessibility to facilities and motorized transport and particularly private cars. It is therefore a useful
services for those with mobility difficulties. Moreover, employing lower concept in the quest for reaching global sustainability, equity, and
than average walking speeds in accessibility analyses would ensure that livability goals. This paper has scrutinized the 15-minute city from
a larger part of the population is included, leading to more equitable theoretical and spatial-analytical points of view. The goal has not been
outcomes. to devalue the concept or suggest “retiring” it but to provide an under­
It should be noted that the list of pitfalls identified in this paper is not standing of challenges, ask critical questions, and develop a set of stra­
exhaustive. Here, the focus has been on the core of the concept as theory tegies that address current challenges. The identified seven pitfalls could
and analytical tool, so issues mainly concerning urban form, accessi­ provoke further debate and urge urban theorists, researchers, practi­
bility, and mobility have been assessed. There are several other chal­ tioners, and policymakers to come up with solutions. Ultimately, by
lenges related to planning processes, public acceptance, applicability, addressing the identified seven pitfalls, the 15-minute city would reor­
implementation, and policy implications that have not been assessed ient itself towards improved environmental and societal outcomes.
here but have been discussed in other studies (Khavarian-Garmsir et al.,
2023; Marquet, Mojica, Fernández-Núñez, & Maciejewska, 2024; CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021).
Finally, by using the title “Time to challenge the 15-minute city”, the Kostas Mouratidis: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Meth­
paper certainly does not wish to align itself with certain popular, and odology, Investigation, Conceptualization.
often unfair, critiques of the concept found in public debates. On the
contrary, here a strong title serves as a call for a fruitful discussion on Declaration of competing interest
theory and analysis, but with a sense of urgency considering the growing
global interest and application of the concept in policy and research. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Specifically, the paper aims to raise the attention of urban and transport interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
scholars and practitioners, as well as anyone interested in urban and the work reported in this paper.
transport matters, about possible misconceptions, weaknesses, and un­
clear spots of the 15-minute city as theory and spatial analytical tool. At Data availability
the same time, the paper wishes to stimulate a scholarly debate on how
to address theoretical and analytical challenges related to the 15-minute No data was used for the research described in the article.
city and proximity-based urban planning in general.

7
K. Mouratidis Cities 153 (2024) 105274

References residential green and blue spaces: A systematic review. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(4), 4354. Retrieved from http://www.
mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/4/4354.
Akrami, M., Sliwa, M. W., & Rynning, M. K. (2024). Walk further and access more!
Gehl, J. (2013). Cities for people. Washington, DC: Island press.
Exploring the 15-minute city concept in Oslo, Norway. Journal of Urban Mobility, 5,
Gehrke, S. R., Singleton, P. A., & Clifton, K. J. (2019). Understanding stated
Article 100077.
neighborhood preferences: The roles of lifecycle stage, mobility style, and lifestyle
Alexander, C. (1965). A city is not a tree. Architectural Forum, 122(1), 58–62.
aspirations. Travel Behaviour and Society, 17, 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Allam, Z., Bibri, S. E., Chabaud, D., & Moreno, C. (2022). The ‘15-Minute City’ concept
tbs.2019.07.001
can shape a net-zero urban future. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9
Giles-Corti, B., Bull, F., Knuiman, M., McCormack, G., Van Niel, K., Timperio, A., …
(1), 126. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01145-0
Boruff, B. (2013). The influence of urban design on neighbourhood walking
Allam, Z., Chabaud, D., Gall, C., Pratlong, F., & Moreno, C. (2023). Chapter 7 - On
following residential relocation: Longitudinal results from the RESIDE study. Social
proximity-based dimensions and urban planning: Historical precepts to the 15-
Science & Medicine, 77, 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.10.016
minute city. In Z. Allam, D. Chabaud, C. Gall, F. Pratlong, & C. Moreno (Eds.),
Glaeser, E. (2011). Triumph of the City: How our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter,
Resilient and sustainable cities (pp. 107–119). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
greener, healthier, and happier. New York: Penguin Books.
Arribas-Bel, D., & Sanz-Gracia, F. (2014). The validity of the monocentric city model in a
Gössling, S., Choi, A., Dekker, K., & Metzler, D. (2019). The social cost of automobility,
polycentric age: US metropolitan areas in 1990, 2000 and 2010. Urban Geography, 35
cycling and walking in the European Union. Ecological Economics, 158, 65–74.
(7), 980–997. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2014.940693
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.016
Ballo, L., de Freitas, L. M., Meister, A., & Axhausen, K. W. (2023). The E-Bike City as a
Grant, J. (2005). Planning the good community: New urbanism in theory and practice. Oxon:
radical shift toward zero-emission transport: Sustainable? Equitable? Desirable?
Routledge.
Journal of Transport Geography, 111, Article 103663.
Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S., & Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious
Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73–80.
hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? European Journal of Clinical
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005
Investigation, 48(6), Article e12931.
Barnett, D. W., Barnett, A., Nathan, A., Van Cauwenberg, J., & Cerin, E. (2017). Built
Guzman, L. A., Arellana, J., Oviedo, D., & Moncada Aristizábal, C. A. (2021). COVID-19,
environmental correlates of older adults’ total physical activity and walking: A
activity and mobility patterns in Bogotá. Are we ready for a ‘15-minute city’? Travel
systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Behaviour and Society, 24, 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2021.04.008
Physical Activity, 14(1), 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0558-z
Guzman, L. A., Oviedo, D., & Cantillo-Garcia, V. A. (2024). Is proximity enough? A
Bartzokas-Tsiompras, A., & Bakogiannis, E. (2023). Quantifying and visualizing the 15-
critical analysis of a 15-minute city considering individual perceptions. Cities, 148,
minute walkable city concept across Europe: A multicriteria approach. Journal of
Article 104882.
Maps, 19(1), Article 2141143. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2022.2141143
Hall, T., & Barrett, H. (2018). Urban geography. Oxon: Routledge.
Bentlage, M., Müller, C., & Thierstein, A. (2021). Becoming more polycentric: Public
Handy, S. (2020). Is accessibility an idea whose time has finally come? Transportation
transport and location choices in the Munich Metropolitan Area. Urban Geography,
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 83, Article 102319. https://doi.org/
42(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1826729
10.1016/j.trd.2020.102319
Birkenfeld, C., Victoriano-Habit, R., Alousi-Jones, M., Soliz, A., & El-Geneidy, A. (2023).
Handy, S., Cao, X., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2006). Self-selection in the relationship between
Who is living a local lifestyle? Towards a better understanding of the 15-minute-city
the built environment and walking: Empirical evidence from northern California.
and 30-minute-city concepts from a behavioural perspective in Montréal, Canada.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Journal of Urban Mobility, 3, Article 100048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
01944360608976724
urbmob.2023.100048
Hanssen, F., Barton, D. N., Venter, Z. S., Nowell, M. S., & Cimburova, Z. (2021). Utilizing
Bohannon, R. W., & Williams Andrews, A. (2011). Normal walking speed: A descriptive
LiDAR data to map tree canopy for urban ecosystem extent and condition accounts in
meta-analysis. Physiotherapy, 97(3), 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Oslo. Ecological Indicators, 130, Article 108007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
physio.2010.12.004
ecolind.2021.108007
Bree, S., Fuller, D., & Diab, E. (2020). Access to transit? Validating local transit
Heinen, E., van Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2010). Commuting by bicycle: An overview of the
accessibility measures using transit ridership. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
literature. Transport Reviews, 30(1), 59–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/
and Practice, 141, 430–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.09.019
01441640903187001
Bruno, M., & van Oort, N. (2023). The ten dimensions of transport related social exclusion.
Higgs, C., Badland, H., Simons, K., Knibbs, L. D., & Giles-Corti, B. (2019). The Urban
Delft: TU Delft.
Liveability Index: Developing a policy-relevant urban liveability composite measure
Calafiore, A., Dunning, R., Nurse, A., & Singleton, A. (2022). The 20-minute city: An
and evaluating associations with transport mode choice. International Journal of
equity analysis of Liverpool City Region. Transportation Research Part D: Transport
Health Geographics, 18(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-019-0178-8
and Environment, 102, Article 103111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103111
Hooyberg, A., Roose, H., Grellier, J., Elliott, L. R., Lonneville, B., White, M. P., …
Cao, X. (2016). How does neighborhood design affect life satisfaction? Evidence from
Everaert, G. (2020). General health and residential proximity to the coast in
twin cities. Travel Behaviour and Society, 5, 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Belgium: Results from a cross-sectional health survey. Environmental Research, 184,
tbs.2015.07.001
Article 109225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109225
Cerin, E., Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., & Frank, L. D. (2006). Neighborhood environment
Howley, P., Scott, M., & Redmond, D. (2009). Sustainability versus liveability: An
walkability scale: Validity and development of a short form. Medicine & Science in
investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Sports & Exercise, 38(9). Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fullte
Management, 52(6), 847–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560903083798
xt/2006/09000/Neighborhood_Environment_Walkability_Scale_.20.aspx.
Jacobs, A., & Appleyard, D. (1987). Toward an urban design manifesto. Journal of the
Creutzig, F., Jochem, P., Edelenbosch, O. Y., Mattauch, L., Vuuren, D. P., & v., McCollum,
American Planning Association, 53(1), 112–120.
D., & Minx, J.. (2015). Transport: A roadblock to climate change mitigation? science,
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage Books.
350(6263), 911–912.
Kärmeniemi, M., Lankila, T., Ikäheimo, T., Koivumaa-Honkanen, H., & Korpelainen, R.
Dantzig, G. B., & Saaty, T. L. (1973). Compact city: A plan for a Liveable urban environment.
(2018). The built environment as a determinant of physical activity: A systematic
San Francisco: WH Freeman.
review of longitudinal studies and natural experiments. Annals of Behavioral
de Vries, S., Nieuwenhuizen, W., Farjon, H., van Hinsberg, A., & Dirkx, J. (2021). In
Medicine, 52(3), 239–251.
which natural environments are people happiest? Large-scale experience sampling in
Khavarian-Garmsir, A. R., Sharifi, A., Hajian Hossein Abadi, M., & Moradi, Z. (2023).
the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 205, Article 103972. https://doi.
From Garden City to 15-Minute City: A historical perspective and critical assessment.
org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103972
Land, 12(2), 512.
Di Marino, M., Tomaz, E., Henriques, C., & Chavoshi, S. H. (2023). The 15-minute city
Khavarian-Garmsir, A. R., Sharifi, A., & Sadeghi, A. (2023). The 15-minute city: Urban
concept and new working spaces: A planning perspective from Oslo and Lisbon.
planning and design efforts toward creating sustainable neighborhoods. Cities, 132,
European Planning Studies, 31(3), 598–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Article 104101.
09654313.2022.2082837
Knap, E., Ulak, M. B., Geurs, K. T., Mulders, A., & van der Drift, S. (2023). A composite X-
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2001). Suburban nation: The rise of sprawl and
minute city cycling accessibility metric and its role in assessing spatial and
the decline of the American dream. New York: North Park Press.
socioeconomic inequalities – A case study in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Journal of
Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis.
Urban Mobility, 3, Article 100043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urbmob.2022.100043
Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265–294.
Krier, L. (1977). The city within the city. A+ U(Special Issue), 69–152.
Forsyth, A., Michael Oakes, J., Lee, B., & Schmitz, K. H. (2009). The built environment,
Krier, L. (2009). The architecture of community. Island Press.
walking, and physical activity: Is the environment more important to some people
Kwan, M.-P. (1998). Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: A
than others? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14(1), 42–49.
comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis, 30(3),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2008.10.003
191–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1998.tb00396.x
Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., Powell, K. E., & Chapman, J. E. (2007). Stepping towards
Kyttä, M., Broberg, A., Haybatollahi, M., & Schmidt-Thomé, K. (2016). Urban happiness:
causation: Do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain
Context-sensitive study of the social sustainability of urban settings. Environment and
physical activity, driving, and obesity? Social Science & Medicine, 65(9), 1898–1914.
Planning. B, Planning & Design, 43(1), 34–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.053
Latinopoulos, D. (2022). Evaluating the importance of urban green spaces: A spatial
Frank, L. D., Sallis, J. F., Conway, T. L., Chapman, J. E., Saelens, B. E., & Bachman, W.
analysis of citizens’ perceptions in Thessaloniki. Euro-Mediterranean Journal for
(2006). Many pathways from land use to health: Associations between neighborhood
Environmental Integration, 7(2), 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-022-
walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality. Journal of the
00300-y
American Planning Association, 72(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Levine, J. (2020). A century of evolution of the accessibility concept. Transportation
01944360608976725
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 83, Article 102309. https://doi.org/
Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Martínez, D., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., Plasència, A., &
10.1016/j.trd.2020.102309
Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2015). Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to

8
K. Mouratidis Cities 153 (2024) 105274

Liao, B., van den Berg, P. E. W., van Wesemael, P. J. V., & Arentze, T. A. (2020). Mouratidis, K. (2021b). Urban planning and quality of life: A review of pathways linking
Empirical analysis of walkability using data from the Netherlands. Transportation the built environment to subjective well-being. Cities, 115, Article 103229. https://
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 85, Article 102390. https://doi.org/ doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103229
10.1016/j.trd.2020.102390 Mouratidis, K., Hofstad, H., Zeiner, H. H., Sagen, S. B., Dahl, C., Følling, K. E., &
Liu, D., Kwan, M. P., & Wang, J. (2024). Developing the 15-Minute City: A Olsen, B. O. (2024). Assessing urban social sustainability with the place standard
comprehensive assessment of the status in Hong Kong. Travel Behaviour and Society, tool: Measurement, findings, and guidance. Cities, 148, Article 104902.
34, Article 100666. Mouratidis, K., & Papagiannakis, A. (2021). COVID-19, internet, and mobility: The rise of
Logan, T. M., Hobbs, M. H., Conrow, L. C., Reid, N. L., Young, R. A., & Anderson, M. J. telework, telehealth, e-learning, and e-shopping. Sustainable Cities and Society, 74,
(2022). The x-minute city: Measuring the 10, 15, 20-minute city and an evaluation of Article 103182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103182
its use for sustainable urban design. Cities, 131, Article 103924. https://doi.org/ Mouratidis, K., & Poortinga, W. (2020). Built environment, urban vitality and social
10.1016/j.cities.2022.103924 cohesion: Do vibrant neighborhoods foster strong communities? Landscape and
Lunke, E. B. (2022). Modal accessibility disparities and transport poverty in the Oslo Urban Planning, 204, Article 103951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
region. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 103, Article landurbplan.2020.103951
103171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103171 Mouratidis, K., & Yiannakou, A. (2022). What makes cities livable? Determinants of
Manaugh, K., & El-Geneidy, A. (2011). Validating walkability indices: How do different neighborhood satisfaction and neighborhood happiness in different contexts. Land
households respond to the walkability of their neighborhood? Transportation Use Policy, 112, Article 105855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105855
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(4), 309–315. https://doi.org/ Mueller, N., Rojas-Rueda, D., Basagaña, X., Cirach, M., Cole-Hunter, T., Dadvand, P., …
10.1016/j.trd.2011.01.009 Martinez, D. (2017). Urban and transport planning related exposures and mortality:
Marans, R. W. (2003). Understanding environmental quality through quality of life A health impact assessment for cities. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(1),
studies: The 2001 DAS and its use of subjective and objective indicators. Landscape 89–96.
and Urban Planning, 65(1–2), 73–83. Murgante, B., Patimisco, L., & Annunziata, A. (2024). Developing a 15-minute city: A
Marans, R. W., & Rodgers, W. L. (1975). Toward an understanding of community comparative study of four Italian Cities-Cagliari, Perugia, Pisa, and Trieste. Cities,
satisfaction. New York: Halsted Press. 146, Article 104765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104765
Markevych, I., Schoierer, J., Hartig, T., Chudnovsky, A., Hystad, P., Dzhambov, A. M., … Næss, P. (2011). ’New urbanism’ or metropolitan-level centralization? A comparison of
Fuertes, E. (2017). Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and the influences of metropolitan-level and neighborhood-level urban form
methodological guidance. Environmental Research, 158, 301–317. https://doi.org/ characteristics on travel behavior. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 4(1), 25–44.
10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.028 Næss, P. (2012). Urban form and travel behavior: Experience from a Nordic context.
Marquet, O., Mojica, L., Fernández-Núñez, M. B., & Maciejewska, M. (2024). Pathways to Journal of Transport and Land Use, 5(2), 21–45.
15-Minute City adoption: Can our understanding of climate policies’ acceptability Næss, P. (2020). Sustainable mobility. In O. B. Jensen, C. Lassen, V. Kaufmann,
explain the backlash towards x-minute city programs? Cities, 148, Article 104878. M. Freudendal-Pedersen, & I. S. G. Lange (Eds.), Handbook of urban mobilities (pp.
Martens, K. (2016). Transport justice: Designing fair transportation systems. New York, NY: 398–408). Oxon: Routledge.
Routledge. Næss, P. (2022). Chapter five - compact urban development in Norway: Spatial changes,
Mavoa, S., Witten, K., McCreanor, T., & O’Sullivan, D. (2012). GIS based destination underlying policies and travel impacts. In X. J. Cao, C. Ding, & J. Yang (Eds.), Vol. 9.
accessibility via public transit and walking in Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of Advances in transport policy and planning (pp. 95–133). Academic Press.
Transport Geography, 20(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.10.001 Neuman, M. (2005). The compact city fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research,
McCrea, R., Shyy, T.-K., & Stimson, R. J. (2014). Satisfied residents in different types of 25(1), 11–26.
local areas: Measuring what’s most important. Social Indicators Research, 118(1), Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (2021). Gasoline consumption and cities revisited: What
87–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0406-8 have we learnt? Current Urban Studies, 9, 532–553.
McGinn, A. P., Evenson, K. R., Herring, A. H., Huston, S. L., & Rodriguez, D. A. (2007). Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2020). Urban and transport planning pathways to carbon neutral,
Exploring associations between physical activity and perceived and objective liveable and healthy cities; a review of the current evidence. Environment
measures of the built environment. Journal of Urban Health, 84(2), 162–184. https:// International, 140, Article 105661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105661
doi.org/10.1007/s11524-006-9136-4 Nordbø, E. C. A., Raanaas, R. K., Nordh, H., & Aamodt, G. (2019). Neighborhood green
McQueen, M., MacArthur, J., & Cherry, C. (2020). The E-bike potential: Estimating spaces, facilities and population density as predictors of activity participation among
regional e-bike impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation Research Part D: 8-year-olds: A cross-sectional GIS study based on the Norwegian mother and child
Transport and Environment, 87, Article 102482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cohort study. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1426. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-
trd.2020.102482 7795-9
Mehaffy, M. W., Porta, S., & Romice, O. (2015). The “neighborhood unit” on trial: A case Nowak, D. J., Greenfield, E. J., Hoehn, R. E., & Lapoint, E. (2013). Carbon storage and
study in the impacts of urban morphology. Journal of Urbanism: International sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States.
Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 8(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/ Environmental Pollution, 178, 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1080/17549175.2014.908786 envpol.2013.03.019
Morency, C., Paez, A., Roorda, M. J., Mercado, R., & Farber, S. (2011). Distance traveled Olivari, B., Cipriano, P., Napolitano, M., & Giovannini, L. (2023). Are Italian cities
in three Canadian cities: Spatial analysis from the perspective of vulnerable already 15-minute? Presenting the next proximity index: A novel and scalable way to
population segments. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/ measure it, based on open data. Journal of Urban Mobility, 4, Article 100057. https://
10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.09.013 doi.org/10.1016/j.urbmob.2023.100057
Moreno, C., Allam, Z., Chabaud, D., Gall, C., & Pratlong, F. (2021). Introducing the “15- Park, Y., & Rogers, G. O. (2015). Neighborhood planning theory, guidelines, and
Minute City”: Sustainability, resilience and place identity in future post-pandemic research:can area, population, and boundary guide conceptual framing? Journal of
cities. Smart Cities, 4(1), 93–111. Planning Literature, 30(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412214549422
Moudon, A. V., Lee, C., Cheadle, A. D., Garvin, C., Johnson, D., Schmid, T. L., … Lin, L. Perry, C. (1929). The neighborhood unit: A scheme of arrangement for the family-life
(2006). Operational definitions of walkable neighborhood: Theoretical and community regional plan of New York and its environs. New York, NY: Arno Press.
empirical insights. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 3(s1), S99–s117. https://doi. Pozoukidou, G., & Chatziyiannaki, Z. (2021). 15-Minute City: Decomposing the new
org/10.1123/jpah.3.s1.s99 urban planning eutopia. Sustainability, 13(2), 928.
Moura, F., Cambra, P., & Gonçalves, A. B. (2017). Measuring walkability for distinct Roy, S., Byrne, J., & Pickering, C. (2012). A systematic quantitative review of urban tree
pedestrian groups with a participatory assessment method: A case study in Lisbon. benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 282–296. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(4), 351–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Mouratidis, K. (2018a). Built environment and social well-being: How does urban form ufug.2012.06.006
affect social life and personal relationships? Cities, 74, 7–20. https://doi.org/ Salingaros, N. (2006). Compact city replaces sprawl. In A. G. L. Kavanaugh (Ed.),
10.1016/j.cities.2017.10.020 Crossover: Architecture, urbanism, technology. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.
Mouratidis, K. (2018b). Is compact city livable? The impact of compact versus sprawled Sallis, J. F., Cerin, E., Conway, T. L., Adams, M. A., Frank, L. D., Pratt, M., … Owen, N.
neighbourhoods on neighbourhood satisfaction. Urban Studies, 55(11), 2408–2430. (2016). Physical activity in relation to urban environments in 14 cities worldwide: A
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017729109 cross-sectional study. The Lancet, 387(10034), 2207–2217. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Mouratidis, K. (2018c). Rethinking how built environments influence subjective well- S0140-6736(15)01284-2
being: A new conceptual framework. Journal of Urbanism, 11(1), 24–40. Sdoukopoulos, A., Papadopoulos, E., Verani, E., & Politis, I. (2024). Putting theory into
Mouratidis, K. (2019a). Built environment and leisure satisfaction: The role of commute practice: A novel methodological framework for assessing cities’ compliance with
time, social interaction, and active travel. Journal of Transport Geography, 80, Article the 15-min city concept. Journal of Transport Geography, 114, Article 103771.
102491. Sharifi, A. (2016). From Garden City to Eco-urbanism: The quest for sustainable
Mouratidis, K. (2019b). Compact city, urban sprawl, and subjective well-being. Cities, 92, neighborhood development. Sustainable Cities and Society, 20, 1–16. https://doi.org/
261–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.04.013 10.1016/j.scs.2015.09.002
Mouratidis, K. (2019c). The impact of urban tree cover on perceived safety. Urban Shashank, A., & Schuurman, N. (2019). Unpacking walkability indices and their inherent
Forestry & Urban Greening, 44, Article 126434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. assumptions. Health & Place, 55, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ufug.2019.126434 healthplace.2018.12.005
Mouratidis, K. (2020). Neighborhood characteristics, neighborhood satisfaction, and Sheller, M. (2018). Mobility justice: The politics of movement in an age of extremes. London:
well-being: The links with neighborhood deprivation. Land Use Policy, 99, Article Verso Books.
104886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104886 Smith, N., Georgiou, M., King, A. C., Tieges, Z., Webb, S., & Chastin, S. (2021). Urban
Mouratidis, K. (2021a). How COVID-19 reshaped quality of life in cities: A synthesis and blue spaces and human health: A systematic review and meta-analysis of
implications for urban planning. Land Use Policy, 111, Article 105772. https://doi. quantitative studies. Cities, 119, Article 103413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105772 cities.2021.103413

9
K. Mouratidis Cities 153 (2024) 105274

Song, X. P., Tan, P. Y., Edwards, P., & Richards, D. (2018). The economic benefits and Vich, G., Gómez-Varo, I., & Marquet, O. (2023). Measuring the 15-minute city in
costs of trees in urban forest stewardship: A systematic review. Urban Forestry & Barcelona. A geospatial three-method comparison. In Resilient and sustainable cities
Urban Greening, 29, 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.017 (pp. 39–60). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Staricco, L. (2022). 15-, 10- or 5-minute city? A focus on accessibility to services in Turin, Viguié, V., Liotta, C., Pfeiffer, B., & Coulombel, N. (2023). Can public transport improve
Italy. Journal of Urban Mobility, 2, Article 100030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. accessibility for the poor over the long term? Empirical evidence in Paris,
urbmob.2022.100030 1968–2010. Journal of Transport Geography, 106, Article 103473. https://doi.org/
Stessens, P., Canters, F., Huysmans, M., & Khan, A. Z. (2020). Urban green space 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103473
qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user Wang, J., & Cao, X. (2017). Exploring built environment correlates of walking distance of
perception. Land Use Policy, 91, Article 104319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. transit egress in the twin cities. Journal of Transport Geography, 64, 132–138. https://
landusepol.2019.104319 doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.08.013
Stevenson, M., Thompson, J., de Sá, T. H., Ewing, R., Mohan, D., McClure, R., … Wang, Y., Chau, C. K., Ng, W. Y., & Leung, T. M. (2016). A review on the effects of
Woodcock, J. (2016). Land use, transport, and population health: Estimating the physical built environment attributes on enhancing walking and cycling activity
health benefits of compact cities. The Lancet, 388(10062), 2925–2935. https://doi. levels within residential neighborhoods. Cities, 50, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30067-8 cities.2015.08.004
Talen, E., & Koschinsky, J. (2014). Compact, walkable, diverse neighborhoods: Assessing White, M. P., Elliott, L. R., Gascon, M., Roberts, B., & Fleming, L. E. (2020). Blue space,
effects on residents. Housing Policy Debate, 24(4), 717–750. https://doi.org/ health and well-being: A narrative overview and synthesis of potential benefits.
10.1080/10511482.2014.900102 Environmental Research, 191, Article 110169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Twardzik, E., Falvey, J. R., Clarke, P. J., Freedman, V. A., & Schrack, J. A. (2023). Public envres.2020.110169
transit stop density is associated with walking for exercise among a national sample Wolday, F., Naess, P., & Tønnesen, A. (2019). Workplace location, polycentricism, and
of older adults. BMC Geriatrics, 23(1), 596. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023- car commuting. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 12(1), 785–810. https://doi.org/
04253-x 10.5198/jtlu.2019.1488
Ventura, J. D., & Hodges, B. H. (2023). Carrying children, groceries, and water across Zhang, Y., Van den Berg, A. E., Van Dijk, T., & Weitkamp, G. (2017). Quality over
varying terrain: Changes in gait and comfortable walking speed. Gait & Posture, 103, quantity: Contribution of urban green space to neighborhood satisfaction.
140–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2023.04.022 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(5). https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph14050535

10