Can Proximal Environments Prevent Social Inequalities Amongst People of All Ages and Abilities? An Integrative Literature Review Approach

Abstract

Although many studies are currently examining the city of proximity as a way to promote sustainable and environmentally friendly cities, few consider it meaningful to achieve an “inclusive” mobility model for people of all ages and abilities, including people with disabilities, children, or the elderly. This literature review paper focuses on the extent to which the city of proximity can provide inclusive mobility and reduce inequalities in the urban scene, thus achieving social sustainability. Out of the 256 references analysed under an integrative review methodology, only 10 delivered solid results. One of the main contributions of this paper is an indicator and sub-indicator system to improve the integrative methodology in urban studies, which led to the identification of several incoherencies in proximity models in terms of accessibility and design for all risking fostering urban with these policies. Although the mentioning of vulnerable collectives may mean a rise in inclusion awareness, one of the most relevant outputs of this paper is the lack of specific measures to revert the disadvantageous situations that conventional mobility planning delivers, as well as the neglection to use proximity actions to promote inclusive and socially resilient urban cities.

1. Introduction

Proximity city models, specifically the 15 min city, have arisen as a viable solution to improve urban health while fostering pedestrian mobility and neighborhood services [1,2]. It gained popularity during the COVID-19 crisis, when the city proved to be a hostile environment for pedestrians, while proximity models, such as the 15-minute city of Paris, presented a pack of measures to boost the potential of streets [3,4,5]. Not only do these chrono-typed models promote a more active way of transportation throughout the city, either on foot or using bicycles, they also look for a renovation in land uses to enhance street life [6].

“Talking about proximity is, therefore, talking about vital, diverse, and multifunctional cities, neighborhoods, and streets, in which the design can safeguard the pedestrian security against other means of transport.” [7]

(p. 160) (Self-translated from Spanish)

While the 20th century conceived the roads as a symbol of progress, it is clear today that they have degraded our urban ecosystems and decreased the quality of life for their inhabitants [7], [8] (pp. 333–334). More than ever, city policies and urban studies put the person first instead of the car, prioritizing walkable transportation over private vehicles [9]. Some of these authors include Jacques Lévy [10], Nuno Portas [11], Jan Gehl [12,13,14,15], Francesco Careri [16], or Jeff Speck [17].

“If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places.” [18]

The quality of life of cities’ inhabitants has been studied worldwide under multiple points of view: noise and air pollution [19], inequality generated by geographical services distribution [20], or even income variations within a territory [21,22,23].

However, little has been published on the potential of the proximity city, as a highly reputed model to achieve equitable and environmentally friendly cities, in terms of achieving more inclusive urban scenarios for people of all ages or abilities. Proximity models are bound to solve several problems presented by the city regarding inclusiveness and design for all. By making streets more walkable or drawing a variety of uses closer to citizens, we can reduce health threats and commuting barriers, resulting in a more inclusive city for all ages and abilities.

As for this matter, the final objective of this article is to identify the research gaps that the background literature presents in terms of proximity models and design for all. In order words, this article attempts to answer the question of how wide the breach separating the city of proximity models and the inclusion of all people in the urban knowledge field is.

More specifically, this paper seeks to: (1) set a comprehensive background for proximity city models regarding design for all; (2) present the current situation in the literature in terms of how both knowledge fields, inclusiveness and the city of proximity, are merging; and (3) evaluate the present literature coverage, detect existing theoretical gaps, and unearth possible future work lines.

This review will be made under an integrative methodology, which would provide a wider and more comprehensive analysis using a qualitative approach rather than a quantitative one, leaving room for indirect solutions analysis. A previous theoretical and conceptual framework on inclusive and proximity city models regarding urban mobility provided 10 questions that were used to analyse the most relevant references.

After addressing the analysis through an integrative methodology, an in-depth discussion will be held based on the selected questions to outline the most relevant gaps and present potential further research lines on this area.

2. Method

This research was conceived under an integrative literature review perspective to compile the maximum amount of information, both theoretical and experimental [24], and address the relationship between the city of proximity and the inclusion of all people from a critical, yet balanced, position [25]. Different literature review methodologies were discarded, including a scoping review [26] for its lack of practical applications and policy studies, and a systematic review or meta-analysis for providing a limited insight into the literature [27]. These might have provided either biased analysis or statistical data accordingly but would ignore subjective or indirect factors only visible after an in-depth study [24].

Most of the studies that use this methodology come from the field of health and nursing [24,28,29,30,31], with less impact from humanities [27]. In those cases where this methodology has been used in the urban field [25,32,33], they analyzed a limited number of references on the subject of the study, which may have drawn biased conclusions [31].

2.1. Step-by-Step Methodology

For the present study, the 5 steps presented by Whittemore and Knafl [24] were followed (1. problem identification; 2. literature research; 3. data evaluation; 4. data analysis; and 5. presentation). The changes adopted by dos Santos Figueiro, Aparecida Prim, and Aparecida Dandolini [25] for steps 3 and 4 were also considered for this analysis, which included a set of yes/no questions that led to a percentage of matching (extracted from Khosravi et al. [34] and Ghobadi [35]), and the creation of a qualitative data matrix to summarize the content of the selected references (extracted from Braun et al. [36]), accordingly.

Finally, some adaptations were made to fit the fields of study and the depth to which each step was considered:

• Step 3: As far as 2 fields of study are concerned, the percentage of adherence or matching increased from 50% [25,34,35] to 75% for a total of 6 steps for proximity and 6 steps for the design for all questions. This proportion would guarantee that both fields are covered to an acceptable extent, while the original 50% would only assure fitting with one of them.
• Step 4: The analysis of the data step would summarize all the relevant information extracted from a steady reading through the references [25,36]. This information would be presented as Souza et al. [31] suggest, i.e., in the form of independent charts, but with variations to fit the topic of this study. Indeed, instead of general questions applied to multiple analyses, the present paper suggests including an extension of the “step 3” questions with specific elements per question, so as to further develop the suitability of the references that are being analysed.

An additional sixth step was believed to be necessary to highlight the main contributions made by this paper, as well as to summarize the research gaps found. Thus, the used methodology is a result of a number of modifications presented in other areas and the adaptations suffered to fit the field of study, as

Table 1. Methodology followed in the present analysis. Base steps and modifications.

Step	Whittemore And Knafl [24] Method	Presented Modifications by Other Authors and Included in This Study	Self-Modifications to Fit the Subject of the Present Study
1. Problem identification	Analysis of the key concepts and ideas to identify the research problem.	-	Questions to be used in Step 3 will be specified together with the theoretical framework presentation.
2. Literature research	A compilation of references that are relevant to the topic.		A greater sample of references was identified to avoid biased conclusions [31].
3. Data evaluation	An evaluation of the references gathered in Step 2 under appropriate criteria.	Set of yes/no questions and references that scored more than 50% of positive results [25,34,35].	For each question, an indicator was created. The percentage was increased from 50% to 75% to fit both fields of study.
4. Data analysis	Data extracted from Step 4 are coded into matrixes.	Independent charts that summarize the yes/no questions [31,36].	Different sub-indicators were established for each yes/no question to deliver an extended analysis.
5. Presentation	Presentation of the results to portray the answer to the research problem.		Critical and horizontal discussion of results.
6. Conclusions	Not considered.		Key findings and contributions extracted from the discussion, as well as possible research gaps.

Source: Self-edited, based on the ideas provided by Whittemore and Knafl [24] and other authors’ modifications.

shows:

As a result, Figure 1 shows the correlation between the 5 + 1-step methodology and the sections in the present paper. It also includes all necessary modifications, a brief explanation, and the product from each step at the bottom of the graphic.

2.2. Materials and Sources

For the present analysis, both scientific and grey literature were examined for a deeper understanding of the key problems that arise in the field of inclusive proximity models. A total of 256 references were used to present the theoretical and conceptual framework in this paper, considering them partially or totally relevant to the topic and for understanding key ideas from both fields.

Different sources were used to identify this first round of references:

• Google Scholar;
• World of Science (WoS);
• Institutional repositories (university, observatories, research groups’ websites, municipalities, governments, etc.).

These documents were not only written in English but also in Italian, Portuguese, and French, with a great influence from Spanish works.

3. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Recently, the project of the 15 min city from Paris has achieved a noticeable presence in both the professional literature and the media because of its sustainable-city-centred strategies. Its objective is to create healthier environments evolving from what the urban studies’ literature has long called the City of Proximity. However, little mention of the inclusiveness of people of different capacities or ages is present in these models.

In the following sections, multiple concepts from the 15 min or city of proximity model will be studied, as well as how inclusive measures can promote healthy mobility and how public transport can help complement mobility for all. Thus, this study focuses on analysing how urban mobility intersects with design for all to achieve an inclusive city.

3.1. A Brief History of Cities of Proximity

Proximity models have long been considered a means to improve the health of its citizens. The first ones date back to the 19th century when new urban proposals aimed to prevent the damage caused by industrialization. Further projects appeared in the 20th century, eventually reaching today’s so-called “sustainable mobility models”.

In the late 19th century, the industrial revolution caused an urban crisis that many European cities had to deal, and are still dealing, with today. Some of the most remarkable examples of healthy urban models in this period (Figure 2) are the Lineal City by Arturo Soria in 1882 [37], linked to the new residential expansions of Madrid [38,39]; the City Garden by Ebenezer Howard in 1898 [40,41], linked to the New Urbanism principles [42]; or the Neighbourhood Unit by Clarence Perry in 1929 [43,44], linked to the American City Planning movement [45].

Although most of those were considered utopian proposals, they set the base or principles over which today’s models are developing. They sought a more sustainable way of transportation to replace private vehicles while fostering pedestrian mobility [3]. Thus, they promoted more active paths of living and aimed to reduce the zoning effect.

For Arturo Soria, the key was to create a Lineal City, in which the axis contained different services, which included a tram line, and from which the residential area would develop sidewards for around 300 m [38,39]. In the case of the City Garden, multiple small and self-sufficient groupings of 32,000 people were placed around and connected by train to the nuclear centre with a population of 58,000 people, with more specific services [44,46]. For the neighbourhood unit, the entire city should follow a pattern of a 1/4 mile radius with all necessary uses for people’s daily living [43,44]. However, the reality was that none of them came true as designed [47], except for a short portion of Ciudad Lineal in Madrid [39]. There were also several attempts by the architects Unwin and Parker to implement the Garden City in 1904, although they only developed the residential component, excluding the remaining principles from the model [48].

During the 1950s and 1960s, Jane Jacobs developed her theory “Eyes on the Street”. She looked for a strategy to increase the activity of the urban areas. As she described in her book titled “Death and Life of Great American Cities” [49], by increasing the attractiveness of the urban scenery, more people tend to use their services, so more variety of uses can be added to the urban fabric as more consumers walk those streets and feel safe to do so. In other words, “Eyes on the Street” procures secure spaces as far as crowded streets tend to reduce criminality, and thus become more engaging.

However, this remained only a theory. By the 1970s, zoning and car usage were the main concerns, along with the elevated amount of time that commuting consumes [50]. In this scenario, Torsten Hägerstrand developed the “Time Geography” theory as a way to explain and analyse the relationship between the space and the time that each person needs to achieve their daily goals. This would be the prelude to the “City of care” from the late 1990s [51].

In this context, 1997 is said to be the birthdate of Cronourbanism or Chronourbanism. By inhering its principles from the “Time Geography” analysis, its goal was to analyse how to reduce commuting time in the city, which would translate into a healthier way of life [52,53].

These latter approaches built upon the early models from the beginning of the century and expanded the analysis on urban dynamics evolution [54]. Distances, attractiveness, and time became essential to understand urban mobility, in addition to time-consuming commuting, which removes that time from other basic human necessities, such as leisure and healthcare.

One of the countries in which the sprawl was turning critical, along with its health-threatening effects, was the United States [47,55]. The “New Urbanism” was the consequence. It saw the light during the 1980s and intended to control residential expansions to make them more sustainable and pedestrian-friendly by mixing uses and restricting the proportion of roads [56,57,58]. Many of the principles of the New Urbanism congress [59] supported Traditional Neighbourhood Design (TND), which has shaped many Mediterranean cities such as Madrid, Berlin, and Paris [60]. Furthermore, they also included Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) patterns, which intend to promote more sustainable means of transport or public transport [56,60,61,62].

Question derived from this section to be used in Step 3:

• Does it acknowledge the existence of previous proximity models?

3.2. Proximity City and Its Different Approaches Depending on the Context

The proximity city, or the city of proximity, aims to achieve more sustainable urban scenes and make streets more comfortable for its inhabitants, placing every essential need close in a pedestrian and time-affordable way [62]. Thus, being accessible to services, time management, and pedestrian security are the pillars of this model [62,63,64]. Although the main objective is clear and common worldwide, the reality is that divergent policies have been developed under different names with multiple approaches and contexts.

One of the most related models is the Walkable City developed by Southworth for the British context [65] and the Spanish version “La Ciudad Paseable” [66]. Many other countries and cities have developed their own, such as Poland [67,68], Barcelona in Spain [69], Toronto in Canada [70], Seoul in South Korea [71,72,73], and Stockholm in Sweden [74,75]. They seek measures that encourage people to take those journeys on foot or other non-polluting means by compacting the urban patch [76], increasing comfortability [65], raising citizen safety [77], and inducing more appealing scenes [78]. Tools such as “Walk Score” were built to evaluate the level of pedestrian access to different land uses to detect areas lacking walkability [79,80,81,82].

Different locations are also working in the “Liveable communities” concept. They prioritize people over the car to fight against 20th-century trends. Based on an integral urban sustainability vision—social, environmental, and economical—they manage to converge actions from different scales—region, neighborhood, and block [83]. It favours human problem identification and the subsequent actions taken over the city to solve them. Different cities, such as Portland [84], Seattle [85], or Denver [83] in the United States, or entire countries such as Australia [83,86,87,88], have presented plans to reduce current car-centred designs while increasing the quality of life of people in these communities.

Likewise, chrono-urbanism proximity models, based on a time-related criteria [53], were also developed to ensure a higher impact on the general public besides academics. They have created chronotype models in which people can access every essential service within a theoretical time radius [62]. For instance, more recently, Carlos Moreno has developed the 15-minute city in Paris (Figure 3) [89,90,91]. In Paris, the city is conceived as a pattern of multiple 15-minute nuclei, either by foot or cycling, containing the main daily uses: work, leisure, study, shopping, healthcare, and living [92,93]. Another example would be the 20-minute neighbourhoods in Melbourne (Figure 3), which reduces the operating scale from the city perspective to neighbourhood concerns. Thus, Melbourne aims to connect people and services by foot internally and by public transport or cycling regionwide [94,95,96]. Another variant of proximity models is the 1-minute City in Stockholm that presents two main products, Future Streets: and Street Moves. Both consider the street as an extension of your own home, making streets more liveable while improving pedestrian transportation at a micro-scale [7,97,98,99]. Other cities have also adopted measures to accomplish chrono-urbanism models, such as Brno in the Czech Republic [100], Krakow in Poland [101], Bratislava in the Slovak Republic [102], Copenhagen in Denmark [103], Utrecht in The Netherlands [104], Milan in Italy [105] (p. 120), Dublin in Ireland [106], Pontevedra in Spain [107], Ottawa in Canada [108], Portland in the United States [84,109], and Detroit in the United States [110].

One key concept that must be clear after considering all these models is the necessity to acknowledge the existence of different contexts and backgrounds for urban planning. The reality is that the complexity and divergencies of every location [111,112] must guide the development of a different plan for a specific city, recognizing its particularities [113] (Pt. D. Bristow, Pt. J. Mant), [114,115]. Although previous models can serve as guidance, they cannot replicate, or should not be replicated, without the needed adjustments of every context. The needs and flows of the inhabitants should determine how to organize the proximity model to avoid potential incompatibilities between standardized criteria and in-site singularities [113] (Pt. J. O’Byrne). Thus, while it is common to undergo literature and policy review, it is also pertinent to collect in-person feedback from the people living in the city, who are the direct recipients of these practices [113] (Pt. D. Bristow).

Questions derived from this section to be used in Step 3:

• Does it suggest drawing essential uses closer to reduce distances?
• Does it include walkability criteria?
• Does it grant the adaptability of their model to a specific context?
• Does it make reference to the inclusion of different vulnerable collectives, such as people with disability, the elderly, or children, in the process of city planning?

3.3. Associated Concepts to the Inclusive City

The “Right To The City” theory, developed by Henri Levebre [116], introduced the concept of people having full access to the city, claiming their right to own the space where they live. However, this cannot be achieved unless everyone can access every place in the city, thus ensuring a more convenient, likewise rightful, walkability [117]. In some cases, vulnerable collectives are denied to access or use the city because of their age or abilities [113] (Pt. A. Grey), [118]. As for this matter, numerous works point out the necessity to grant mobility to all people in pursuit of equity, opportunity, and empowerment that only urban mobility can award [119].

Most of today’s cities developed under discriminatory policies derived from a biased perspective throughout the history of the different capacities, ages, and abilities [120]. The medical model developed after World War II fostered the belief that people with disabilities should go under treatment or rehabilitation to be part of society. In the 1970s, the social model positioned society as the one that excluded them from daily activities [121]. In the late 1990s, the medical and the social model merged to create the “bio-psycho-social model”. From that time onwards, the disabling processes depended on various complex relations between the person and the environment, changing over time, place, and age. Terms such as “disabling society” [122,123], “disabling culture” [124], and “disabling relations” [118] (Ch. 3) arrived to answer those complex ties between different factors. It eventually triggered the concept of “disabling cities” [118] (Ch. 6–7), [125], developed by urban planners and geosocial researchers entirely to refer to the power of exclusion that cities exercise over people with different abilities or ages, such as people with disabilities, children, and the elderly [118].

Despite the advances of latter decades, global reports highlight that communities have neglected to accomplish the “inclusive city model” that opposes the “disabling cities” concept. This fact perpetuates urban exclusion practices [126,127,128]. Cities are still hostile places to live in, especially for people of different abilities and ages, who have long been excluded [105,126,129,130,131,132,133,134].

These four different concepts must be presented when referring to the level of inclusiveness of a space [120,135,136]:

• Accessibility: refers to minimal adjustments to reach a level of accessibility that is compulsory by law. They are highly connected to wheel-chair accessibility but disconnected from sensorial and cognitive accessibility.
• Universal accessibility: refers to projects that include several accessibility strategies to grant access to all people everywhere by creating alternative and segregated itineraries or spaces.
• Universal design: refers to spaces that anyone can use in the same conditions, although lacking adaptability for specific necessities.
• Design for all: refers to the design of spaces for everyone in an adaptable and inclusive way.

Most of the collected literature agrees that full inclusion of people of every age and ability, avoiding the creation of disabling cities, can only be possible by applying design for all techniques [120,136,137,138,139]. Universal accessibility remains acceptable when design-for-all is not feasible, although the quality of the space may be lower [140] and biased, targeted only at people with mobility disabilities [141]. In other words, it considers a restricted variety of profiles, prioritizing some barriers, such as physical obstacles, over others, such as wayfinding, thus neglecting any real inclusion [113] (Pt. A. Grey), [141]. These choices perpetuate “ableism” or the design for an archetype user disregarding the diversity that the population of every city embraces [142].

Active aging [105,127,143], [113] (Pt. B. Giles-Corti), visual walkability [78], inclusive cities for people with disabilities [137,138], urban health [5,144,145,146,147,148], or even children inclusiveness justice [129,131,134,149,150] are some of the models and techniques that have been developed in the last decades to create “enabling cities” where everybody actually feels included. These offer solutions that could minimize the risk of exclusion and segregation of minority and often-forgotten groups, making it necessary to study current trending proximity policies under these terms.

Questions derived from this section to be used in Step 3:

• Does it include Accessibility, Universal Accessibility, Design for all or Universal Design principles?
• Does it develop policies in favor of active aging, visual walkability, inclusive cities for people with disabilities, urban health, children inclusiveness justice, or any other inclusive active mobility model?
• Does it acknowledge that inclusivity practices benefit all users, not only those commonly considered as vulnerable?

3.4. The Importance of Crip Time in Understanding the Inclusive City Dynamics

As with any other variable, time also plays its part in social development and city usage [151]. The crip time theory states that a city should be malleable and comfortable to the people, escaping from standardization that leads to segregation [141,152]. This theory confronts clock time to crip time to reduce this segregational process [153,154]:

“[…] rather than bend disabled bodies and minds to meet the clock, crip time bends the clock to meet disabled bodies and minds” [155]

(p. 27).

Therefore, the term “Crip mobility” can be used when referring to the time variable in the urban transportation context [141], as far as people spend most of their time commuting in the city [56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158]. People of different ages and abilities usually need different amounts of time to make the same journey, which makes it impossible to adjust to a “standard” timetable [151,153,157]. This conflict leads to the frequent perception of “feeling rushed” when trying to adjust to model time patterns [151,153,159], which results in a reduction in self-realization and autonomy [160].

The crip time theory was largely unconsciously adopted when the COVID-19 burst paralyzed our cities, and time was bent to accommodate home-working timetables, and to balance job, family, and leisure commitments without needing to commute [161]. As people had to meet daily needs in the nearest environment, we became aware of the impact that commuting had on our lives in terms of time consumption. Moreover, we noticed how our proximal urban environment did not cover our daily needs, but we had adapted to it [162].

However, this problem was not a new concern. In 2011, during a European series of conferences, the “Adaptable City” concept, including the term “Malleable city”, was developed [163]. With this came advocations for a city that accommodated users’ needs. In practice, it meant avoiding the zoning and specialization of large urban sectors while creating healthier proximity environments in residential areas. The sprawl tendency has led to the expansion and spread of current cities, changing the time adjustments that inhabitants follow daily and therefore the travel patterns [111]. Thus, time is vital to set a clear image of the city’s commuting behaviour:

“Time is an essential dimension as a key to understanding the dysfunctions of the city and as a lever in the context of sustainable development. […] Time reflects the demands of European populations for proximity, for participation.” [163]

(p. 8)

Many people lack access options when they do not or cannot drive, turning public commuting into an essential means to meet their needs. As a result, efficient and well-designed public transport facilitates the accommodation of different ways of managing time, allowing all people to handle their own timetables [164], [165] (p. 93). Public transport grants equal access and opportunity to all people while ensuring their independence [166,167,168,169].

Question derived from this section to be used in Step 3:

• Does it present time management policies in terms of urban mobility?

3.5. Concept of Micro-Mobility and Impact on Inclusive Mobility

The micro-mobility concept was born in the transportation field, although it has been used to refer to pedestrian mobility in recent years. It responds to the study of short journeys that can be covered by cycling or walking in less than 10 min [7,169]. By fostering sustainable micro-mobility practices, citizens can decrease the amount of daily commuting, reducing non-renewable energy usage and encouraging greener solutions [113] (Pt. B. Giles-Corti).

Clear examples of policies which directly address this theory, with some even under the design-for-all perspective, include the woonerfs in The Netherlands [117,170,171]; residential streets and shared zones in Spain [172]; low-speed areas or “gångfartsområde” in Sweden [173,174]; residential zones or “zone résidentielle” in France [175], Belgium [176], and Quebec [177]; or shared zones in Australia [178,179] and New Zealand [179].

However, accomplishing safety along streets is not only about transforming them into pedestrian paths, but aiming to be safe from violent scenarios. Therefore, safety, from an inclusive perspective for people of all ages and abilities, not only relies on avoiding unexpected encounters with high-speed vehicles, but achieving it economically [180], socially [181,182,183], politically, and in terms of design [184]. Consequently, inclusive micro-mobility practises must reject any type of violence against historically discriminated collectives [167,182,185]. Some authors even criticise how some policies take the ease of movement for granted, without much further discussion [119,155], again perpetuating the standardized urban transportation models without minding the largest minority group that people with disabilities constitute [141].

In addition, they commonly avoid addressing the existing conflict between cycling and people with the unease of movement, who may fail to react on the expected standard time to potential urban threats [142,172,186]. Some authors even consider cycling as a way to perpetuate segregation [141,186], while the 15 min city places pedestrian mobility and cycling in the same position. The ableism shown in these practices is also considered to be a form of urban violence that ought to be corrected to reduce all possible risks and accommodate all possible needs [187].

New urbanism and smart growth practices suggest there has been little consideration of social structures and how they influence the wellbeing and participation of diverse groups in our communities and cities [137,188]. Some authors claim that this issue has, in fact, been placed into the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) pack, removing exclusion and associated social conflicts from studies and policies [189]. This results in multiple incoherencies that hamper the correct functioning of micro-mobility practices, and therefore proximity models [142]. In this regard, some studies have qualitatively proved that it is possible to achieve micro-mobility justice [141] by providing micro-journeys in public transport to reduce physical barriers that can appear while walking [190].

Questions derived from this section to be used in Step 3:

• Does it support pedestrian micro-mobility strategies?
• Does it include public transport as a way to reduce micro-mobility barriers?

4. Results

4.1. Literature Gathering

For the present analysis, we selected the main scientific and grey literature contributions from the theoretical and conceptual framework for a deeper analysis. The number of references was reduced to gather the most pertinent ones, according to the following two criteria: (1) removing those that either showed a minor contribution to the field of the study (

Table 2. Main topics and specific topics list. Author’s editing (2022).

Main Topics	Specific Topics
Accessibility, urbanism, public transport, mobility	Children, chrono-urbanism, crip time theory, elderly, equity and inequality reduction, inclusive urban strategies, liveability, micro-mobility, proximity, urban health, urban mobility, urban scenario, walkability

Based on the theoretical framework reference compilation, a total of 120 works matched these criteria.

) and (2) removing those which were noticeably old to serve as current state-of-the-art references (excluding those which had been published before 2000).

4.2. Data Evaluation

4.2.1. Questions and Indicators Design

As for the data evaluation, a total of 12 questions were used and answered under a yes/no criterion. To fit both fields of study—the proximity city and design for all—6 questions from each one were used. For each question, an indicator and an explanation were provided to ease the replication of this research (

Table 3. Set of questions for Step 3, their field, explanation, and indicator. Author’s editing (2022).

Field	Question	Indicator	Explanation
Proximity	Does it acknowledge the existence of previous proximity models?	Previous proximity models	Proximity models are not something new, and many cities have previous approaches to this urban concept that should be considered.
Proximity	Does it suggest drawing essential uses closer to reduce distances?	Close essential uses	Drawing essential uses closer to residential areas reduces sprawl and fosters more urban participation.
Proximity	Does it include walkability criteria?	Walkability criteria	Walkability can provide urban adjustments that facilitate its usage in terms of pedestrian mobility, avoiding the fostering of private vehicle dependence.
Proximity	Does it grant the adaptability of their model to a specific context?	Adaptability	Urban models should be adapted to specific contexts, as people from different contexts tend to use the city in different ways.
Design for all	Does it present time management policies in terms of urban mobility?	Time management policies	Different abilities and ages may present different speeds and ways of interacting with the urban environment in terms of time, including the physical radius that they have access to in the chronotype models.
Design for all	Does it include accessibility, universal accessibility, design for all, or universal design principles?	Inclusivity and accessibility concepts	It is important that authors acknowledge the existence of different levels of accessibility and identify the level of inclusiveness of their measures.
Design for all	Does it develop policies in favour of active aging, visual walkability, inclusive cities for people with disabilities, urban health, children inclusiveness justice, or any other inclusive active mobility model?	Inclusive active mobility	Active mobility models procure neighbourhoods with more inclusive urban spaces, boosting their use by people of all ages and abilities in an active way. This can ease the interaction between all citizens and the urban environment.
Design for all	Does it make reference to the inclusion of different vulnerable collectives, such as people with disabilities, the elderly, or children, in the process of city planning?	Vulnerable collectives	Although inclusive measures benefit all, it is necessary to highlight how certain collectives are affected by exclusive practices that are present in most current cities.
Design for all	Does it acknowledge that inclusivity practices benefit all users, not only those commonly considered as vulnerable?	Benefits of inclusivity for all	Everybody can face a situation where the urban environment is hostile due to numerous barriers, either physical, sensory, or cognitive. Inclusive design can guarantee equal access to the city in almost any circumstances.
Proximity	Does it support pedestrian micro-mobility strategies?	Micro-mobility strategies	A proportion of public streets should provide measures that guarantee accessible and inclusive mobility in short journeys on foot.
Design for all	Does it include public transport as a way to reduce micro-mobility barriers?	Micro-mobility through public transport	Certain micro-mobility barriers, such as high slopes and street sections with several urban barriers, may be easier to transit via short public transport journeys.
Proximity	Does it confirm public transport as a way to ample the chrono-typed model radius?	Proximity through public transport	Multiple residential nuclei can be connected by public transport to achieve city connectivity beyond the chronotype radius.

):

4.2.2. Results from Data Evaluation

All 120 works were analysed through these 12 questions under a “yes/no” criteria, resulting in the data that appear in Figure 4.

Out of 120 references, the results showed that 84 included walkability measures, while 75 agreed that pedestrian transportation could benefit vulnerable collectives. On the other side, only 13 works included public transport to improve short-distance journeys or micro-mobility, and 20 references mentioned the necessity of implementing time management policies.

One data study depicts a relevant research gap on these topics is the difference between works, including inclusive mobility practices (58 references out of 120) or making references available to vulnerable collectives (75 references out of 120), as well as the benefits that design for all could bring to every citizen (20 references out of 120), which widens the breach between cities with accessibility measures and inclusive city models. The same applies to public transport services, where 56 references acknowledged that it helps to connect different proximity neighbourhoods to create an entire proximal city, but only 13 references share the importance of achieving micro-mobility within those proximity nuclei.

Another divergence is visibility between walkability measures (84) and time management policies (20 references out of 120). Only 15% of the references agreed that urban policies should address time management, while up to 70% included walkability standards to improve pedestrian mobility. As explained in the conceptual framework, mobility is liable to walking speed and comfortability to optimal inclusive conditions, meaning that walkability is not experienced in the same way by people of different ages and abilities in terms of time or pace.

Moreover, only 40 references out of 120, around 33%, considered adapting the model to specific contexts. This highlights the problem of using models with general measures without adapting them to different cultural environments and locations.

Out of the 12 selected indicators, an elevated proportion of the studied references only answered positively to between 3 and 5 questions (Figure 5), which means that a high number of the works were focused on one field of study, as expected (proximity or design for all).

Another result in this line states that no study answered ‘yes’ to six out of six questions for design for all (Figure 6), while some references did it for proximity. As a whole, further consideration is given to the proximity city than design for all, as the global numbers prove (Figure 5).

Only those references that answered “yes” to 75% or more of the questions were selected for the discussion. Following this condition, only 10 works met that criterion:

• Baldwin, C., and Stafford, L. (2019). The Role of Social Infrastructure in Achieving Inclusive Liveable Communities: Voices from Regional Australia.
• Croucher, K., Wallace, A., and Duffy, S. (2012). The influence of land use mix, density and urban design on health: A critical literature review.
• EVANS, G. (2009). Accessibility, Urban Design and the Whole Journey Environment.
• Hanson, J. (2004). The inclusive city: Delivering a more accessible urban environment through inclusive design.
• Jiménez Martín, D. (2015). (Original title: la accesibilidad en los espacios públicos con plataforma única de convivencia. Análisis y Clasificación de las soluciones existentes. Avances y nuevos problemas. Posibles parámetros e Indicadores de accesibilidad). Translation: Universal accessibility in public areas with shared streets. Analysis and classification of current solutions. Advances and new problems. Possible accessibility parameters and indicators.
• Libertun de Duren, N. R. (Ed.). (2021). Cities as Spaces for Opportunities for All: Building Public Spaces for People with Disabilities, Children and Elders.
• NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit. (2007). Delivering Healthier Communities in London.
• Pozoukidou, G., and Chatziyiannaki, Z. (2021). 15-Minute City: Decomposing the New Urban Planning Eutopia.
• Stockholm City Council. (2010). The Walkable City. Stockholm City Plan.
• World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. (2009). Age-friendly global cities: A guide.

4.3. Matrixes

A total of 10 works were examined in depth, opting for a qualitative analysis while displaying the results in matrixes, as the one shown in Appendix A (

Table A1. Sample matrix used for the in-depth analysis of the 10 most relevant works. Author’s editing based on Souza et al. [31] (2022).

A. Identification
A.1. Title of the publication
A.2. Title of the journal or platform of publication
A.3. Author/s
A.4. Country
A.5. Language
A.6. Year of publication
B. Methodological characteristics
B.1. Type of publication		B.1.1. Research ( ) Literature review ( ) Results paper ( ) Case study B.1.2. Non research ( ) Guideline ( ) Report ( ) Plan B.1.3. Other ( ) Specify: ____________
B.2. Reference field		( ) Proximity ( ) Design for all
B.3. Objective or research question
B.4. Treatment of data or methodology
B.5. Relevant contributions
B.6. Conclusions
C. Approach towards inclusiveness andthecity of proximity
C.1. Previous proximity models (multiple option)	( ) Not considered C.1.1. Location ( ) Same location ( ) Different location C.1.2. Date ( ) Historical references ( ) Current model records ( ) Other parallel models	C.7. Inclusive active mobility (multiple option)	( ) Not considered ( ) Active ageing ( ) Visual walkability ( ) Inclusive cities for people with disabilities ( ) Urban health ( ) Children inclusiveness justice ( ) Other: ______________
C.2. Close essential uses (single option)	( ) Not considered ( ) Variety of uses ( ) Certain uses	C.8. Vulnerable collectives (multiple option)	( ) Not considered ( ) Children ( ) Elderly ( ) People with disabilities ( ) Other: ______________
C.3. Walkability criteria (multiple option)	( ) Not considered ( ) Walkable city ( ) Liveable communities ( ) Chrono-urbanism ( ) Other: ______________	C.9. Benefits of inclusivity for all (multiple option)	( ) Not considered ( ) Provides specific examples ( ) Just mentions it
C.4. Adaptability (multiple option)	( ) Not considered ( ) Neighbourhood participation ( ) Administration considerations ( ) Other _______________	C.10. Micro-mobility strategies (multiple option)	( ) Not considered ( ) Pedestrian streets ( ) Separated cycling itineraries ( ) Other: ______________
C.5. Time management policies (multiple option)	( ) Not considered ( ) Speed variations ( ) Adaptable city criteria ( ) Other: ______________	C.11. Micro-mobility through public transport (single option)	( ) Not considered ( ) Mentions the necessity to include it ( ) Suggest specific solutions ( ) Other: ______________
C.6. Inclusivity and accessibility concepts (multiple option)	( ) Not considered ( ) Accessibility ( ) Universal accessibility ( ) Universal design ( ) Design for all or inclusiveness	C.12. Proximity through public transport (single option)	( ) Not considered ( ) Closeness to public transport ( ) Public transport fostering inter-neighbourhood connection ( ) Other: ______________

). The created matrix was based on an example of data collection carried out by Souza et al. (2010) [31], complemented with inclusion, proximity, and other urban criteria from the theoretical and conceptual framework.

The selected references were not only academic contributions but also guidelines and plans, so they delivered an ampler perspective on the gap between both disciplines.

For each of the prepared questions, we developed several sub-indicators according to the content of the theoretical and conceptual framework. This may provide a deeper analysis of each indicator and specific data on each of the questions/indicators. Each sub-indicator also received the “yes/no” criterion assessment. In some questions, multiple sub-indicators could be marked as positive, while only one option was possible in other cases. Additionally, an extra sub-indicator called “not considered” was added in all cases to be selected in case the reference did not include information on that indicator.

4.3.1. Results from Matrix Analysis

After analysing the 10 selected papers, the indicators show (Figure 7) that all them met half of the criteria: close essential uses, walkability criteria, inclusive active mobility, vulnerable collectives, and proximity through public transport. On the contrary, in line with the results from the analysis of 120 references, micro-mobility through public transport criterion still presents the lowest acceptance, with only 2 of the 10 references including it.

After considering the general data, some results were extracted from each question’s sub-indicators.

4.3.2. Previous Proximity Models

For this indicator, multiple sub-indicators could be marked as positive.

As Figure 8 shows, out of the 10 selected references, around 5 of them met each sub-indicator.

It has been clear from the theoretical framework that acknowledging previous similar models [62] is essential in order to detect working and non-working policies. However, only 6 references mentioned previous literature studies in the same location or current model records on the model that is being implanted.

This may confirm the problem of plans and new theories not working over previous documents, meaning that previous analyses and studies were not considered.

4.3.3. Close Essential Uses

For this indicator, only one sub-indicator could be marked as positive.

As Figure 9 positively displays, 9 out of 10 of the selected references mentioned the need to include a variety of uses in proximal areas.

In other words, almost every reference recognized the need to accomplish a balance proximity model in terms of services. Only one document made reference to specific uses alone (mostly related to green infrastructures). Thus, most of the studied references acknowledged the necessity of providing a diverse range of services in proximity models [62,92,93], not only certain uses.

4.3.4. Walkability Criteria

For this indicator, multiple sub-indicators could be marked as positive. As Figure 10 presents, the walkable city was the most popular amongst the selected references (9 out of 10), while chrono-urbanism resulted the least mentioned one (3 out of 10).

This means that theories on how to improve pedestrian transportation [65] have been more extensively developed than those regarding chrono-urbanism or cities organized on the clock [4,53], although both pursue similar final goals. However, it is clear that the street design to improve pedestrian quality settles as one of the fundamental strategies towards proximity [62,64].

4.3.5. Adaptability

For this indicator, multiple sub-indicators could be marked as positive.

As Figure 11 reveals, all 10 references included neighbourhood participation, and 6 of them also included administration considerations.

As stated in the literature, it is essential to include neighbours’ opinions on their context necessities to reach an optimal level of city proximity that can actually benefit their users [1,113] (Pt. D. Bristow). All the references agreed and mentioned the urge to listen to the people who use the city and the proximal environment, rejecting general guidelines particularities [114].

While administration consideration was also included as part of the process, it is evident that the adaptability must come from the ultimate user, which can trigger a bottom-up urban strategy [113] (Pt. B. Giles-Corti).

4.3.6. Time Management Policies

For this indicator, multiple sub-indicators could be marked as positive. As Figure 12 illustrates, only half of the references addressed the variations in pedestrians’ speed. This means that only half of them acknowledged the existence of users of different abilities and ages who may need more time than average to execute the same urban process and activities [151,153,157].

On the other hand, criteria for an adaptable city were only present in four of the analysed documents, consolidating the previous statement that today’s cities still present “disabling” urban environments that cannot adjust to different people’s needs [118,129,132].

4.3.7. Inclusivity and Accessibility Concepts

For this indicator, multiple sub-indicators could be marked as positive.

As Figure 13 indicates, 8 out of 10 papers support design for all and inclusive criteria, making this the most recurrent sub-indicator.

Most of the papers offered an inclusive perspective on the matter of urbanism and the city of proximity, or the enabling city’s theory. It is particularly remarkable that only 3 references mentioned the need to include universal design policies, but 8 out of 10 preferred to adjust their criteria and indicators to inclusive practices.

The logical conclusion would be that more and more people are becoming aware of how important inclusive environments are. In other words, it is clear that a change in the paradigm of inclusion is happening—from earlier studies where inclusive spaces were not even conceived to recent papers that present design for all or an inclusiveness perspective [136,137].

4.3.8. Inclusive Active Mobility

For this indicator, multiple sub-indicators could be marked as positive. As Figure 14 discloses, inclusive cities for people with disabilities seem to be the main concern in present urbanism studies on inclusiveness and active mobility, while active aging and urban health are placed in the second position.

However, the most relevant data suggest that visual walkability, used to improve everybody’s experience [78], and children’s inclusiveness justice, which enables younger people inclusion in the city [129,131,134,149,150], are positioned on a second level. Children seem to have less recognition in the urban scene than other ages, and different strategies, such as visual walkability, also present lower analysis.

This should raise awareness around the necessity to include other tools that could improve the quality of life of all people and not only vulnerable collectives [134]. Furthermore, it also suggests that a more in-depth research study on how children with disabilities interact with the city should be conducted.

4.3.9. Vulnerable Collectives

For this indicator, multiple sub-indicators could be marked as positive. As Figure 15 evidences, all children, the elderly, and people with disabilities have a strong presence in the selected literature. All vulnerable collectives are present in almost every reference that was revised (10 out of 10 in the cases of children and people with disabilities, and 9 out of 10 for the elderly). This may mean that papers’ authors are aware of the importance of considering them, which is a step towards the total inclusion of all of them in urban studies and policies [142]. However, their mentioning does not always translate into actions, as shown in other indicators.

4.3.10. Micro-Mobility Strategies

For this indicator, multiple sub-indicators could be marked as positive.

As Figure 16 shows, 7 out of 10 references include pedestrian streets measures, while 2 aim to explicitly separate cycling itineraries.

Although bike lanes are bound to present some serious danger for people with slower reflexes [142,172,186], only 2 studies mentioned the possibility of separating them in the urban patchwork. Numerous conflicts in terms of acoustics, visual identification, and timely responses to unexpected encounters may create undesirable situations of conflict between pedestrians and cyclists [141,186].

On the other side, pedestrian streets seem popular in urban studies in terms of inclusiveness. Thus, micro-mobility strategies for a better pedestrian–city interaction turned recurrent in 7 out of the 10 selected references.

4.3.11. Micro-Mobility through Public Transport

For this indicator, only one sub-indicator could be marked as positive.

As Figure 17 illustrates, 2 out of 10 references mentioned the necessity to include micro-mobility through public transport, and 0 references suggested specific solutions to address it.

In other words, besides having only 2 references that included micro-mobility through public transport, they only present this criterion by mentioning it, without providing specific solutions. Not even one reference made suggestions on how to create micro-mobility by using public transport [141], although it appeared in excluded references, including their need to achieve inclusive mobility in the urban scene.

4.3.12. Proximity through Public Transport

In this indicator, multiple sub-indicators could be marked as positive at the same time.

As Figure 18 indicates, 9 out of 10 references included closeness to public transport, and 7 out of 10 references considered that closeness to stops is necessary as it boosts the interconnection of city neighbourhoods.

This criterion showed to be the positive in a higher proportion than others, thus supporting the importance of public transport as a connector of the different proximal urban spaces [95,190].

5. Discussion

The sub-indicators show that inclusive measures in proximal environments are still at an early stage, meaning that further development is required.

One piece of evidence would be the high rates of “design for all or inclusiveness” and “vulnerable collectives”, while other indicators and sub-indicators such as “separated cycling itineraries” or “suggested specific solutions” for micro-mobility through public transport received almost no support. Some references suggested the importance of addressing possible conflicts that people of different ages and abilities present in the urban environment [142,184,186]. This might raise the question of the real level of “inclusivity” awareness in comparison to the pressure that some authors may have to include key and trendy concepts, such as the bicycle spread we are suffering from in the post-pandemic era [4], although they lack specific measures to support those concepts in terms of equity and urban mobility justice [119,141].

Something similar, although more specific, happens with the inclusion of children. While they are considered as vulnerable by all papers, only 4 of them mentioned specific actions or measures to achieve children’s inclusiveness justice. Without specific measures in proximity models, those collectives would continue being segregated, as traditional discriminatory practices are perpetuated by not proposing any changes in current urban models [129,130,134].

Another example of this problem is the divergence between their acknowledgment of the need to consult urban decisions with the neighbourhoods, but only half of the references included time management policies, either speed variations or adaptable city criteria. In other words, the studied works may have only considered the majority or stereotyped groups when addressing bottom-up strategies, but not those considered vulnerable. However, those who are often neglected the opportunity to participate in the urban scene—people with disabilities, seniors, children, etc.—are commonly the ones who will benefit the most from neighbour consultation [113] (Pt. D. Bristow).

As a whole, despite presenting high-standard positive indicators in the field of proximity city, the design for all evaluation show disparities and discrepancies that ought to be considered in more extensive studies.

6. Limitations and Future Recommendations

It was possible to detect some limitations in the present study:

• The indicators and subindicators system, although highly useful and representative, reduces the amount of information extracted from papers, which may be complemented by additional indicators in future analysis.
• Although extensive (256 references), the number of consulted documents was limited because of time and availability. Thus, other references that addressed these lines of research could have been included with more time and resources. The gathered literature was presented in several languages, although more knowledge on the subject is likely to be under development in many more. Future research may be conducted, including references in other languages, which may deliver different conflicts.

7. Conclusions

This article offers an in-depth examination of the current situation of the gap between an inclusive city model and the city of proximity. After providing a conceptual and theoretical approach to the literature and practices background, a total of 120 references were studied under 12 different questions, 6 from each of both fields (design for all to achieve inclusive city models, and the city of proximity). The minimum score to be considered for a deeper analysis was 75%, as they needed to match criteria from both sides, resulting in a total of 10 references that could be considered as relevant contributions. These were analysed by completing a matrix or sheet after a slow reading of each reference.

In spite of the exposed limitations, the analysis delivered clear and relevant results, while summarising the main concepts that could lead to an inclusive proximity model.

The most relevant contributions of this paper are three-sided:

• As for the methodology, integrative analyses are not as popular in urban studies as in health studies, so this study provided an applied example of this methodology for the field. In addition, the implementation of indicators for each question in Step 3 represents a relevant input. They provide quick reference and guidance for the reader when trying to understand the analysis, while allowing clearer data extraction to the present results. This compilation of indicators shows an improvement in the appliance of this methodology in the field of urban and disability studies, as it simplifies and organises the process of reference evaluation.
• As for the present consideration of inclusive concepts, this study aimed to provide an integrative city model, where there is no distinction between “regular” practices and “inclusive” practices. That is the reason why we took one step away from a complete negative discourse, commonly present in design for all practices, which only fit those considered as “vulnerable”, as is common in disability studies and the selected references. As a result, the mix of inclusive and vulnerable collective indicators shed light on the urge to implement design for all as any other tool in the planning and academic discipline to achieve an inclusive design. It would not only bring benefits to affected collectives, but also to all people who enjoy a more pedestrian-friendly environment.
• As for the existing gap, only 8% of the references score the minimum of 75% of the criteria, meaning that a reduced proportion of the literature that serves as a reference for the theoretical and conceptual framework of both fields actually matches the criteria for the two at the same time. The main gaps include achieving micro-mobility through public transport within the proximity space and considering design for all as a way to facilitate the life of all the people, and not only those who are tagged as “vulnerable”.

In conclusion, proximity models are bound to create more inclusive city dynamics. Cities should be pedestrian-friendly for everyone, promoting more comfortable and inclusive urban models. However, there is still work to be carried out, as highlighted in the Discussion section, not only in terms of environmental sustainability (as emphasized in multiple proximity models), but also in addressing social justice and the importance of considering people of all ages and abilities in the city-making process.