A Maturity-Based Protocol for Assessing the Adherence of TGD Licensing Procedures to Sustainable Urban Mobility: The Case of Rio de Janeiro

Abstract

The licensing of trip-generating developments (TGDs) determines how mobility impacts are assessed and which mitigation measures are required, yet procedures remain heterogeneous and largely focused on roadway performance. No instrument was identified to assess their adherence to sustainable urban mobility (SUM) principles. This study proposes a maturity-based protocol for that assessment. It comprises four dimensions, sixteen components, and three maturity levels: N1 conventional, N2 in transition, and N3 SUM-oriented. It derives from an integrative review of the literature and technical and institutional documents. Expert content validation yielded item-level indices of 0.86–1.00 and a scale-level index of 0.94. Inter-rater assessment showed 81.3% exact agreement and an ordinal Krippendorff’s alpha of 0.83. Applied to Rio de Janeiro, it classified five components at N1, ten at N2, and one at N3. Sustainable mobility is reflected in the regulatory vocabulary, in the declared scope of the study, in measures for pedestrians and cyclists, and in the financial instrument, without reaching the metrics that structure the approval decision. By shifting the unit of analysis to the regulatory procedure and presenting a diagnostic profile rather than an aggregate score, the protocol provides a basis designed for replication and comparison across municipal licensing systems.

1. Introduction

Trip-generating developments (TGDs), referred to in Brazil as Polos Geradores de Viagens (PGVs), are developments that, owing to their scale, activity type, and location, alter travel patterns and affect road safety and the environmental quality of their surroundings [1,2]. The licensing of such developments is the mechanism by which public authorities review expected impacts, set the conditions under which a development may proceed, and prescribe mitigation measures. In several countries, TGD licensing has been progressively incorporated into urban regulatory frameworks [2,3]. Even so, key aspects of this process, such as the classification criteria, the metrics employed, and the nature of the required measures, remain heterogeneous, drawing growing attention in the literature [4,5,6].

This heterogeneity is not merely administrative: it expresses different ways of understanding the impact of a development on mobility. The literature has shown that this impact stems not only from the size or typology of the TGD, but also from its interaction with the urban context, shaped by land use, transport provision, and accessibility conditions [7,8,9]. From the perspective of sustainable urban mobility (SUM), the assessment of impacts and the definition of mitigation measures should not be restricted to local roadway performance, but should incorporate accessibility, multimodality, the built environment, and strategies compatible with reducing automobile dependence [10]. Regulatory practice, however, remains anchored in operational metrics centered on vehicular flow and in responses geared toward expanding roadway capacity [11]. No instrument was identified in the reviewed literature designed to assess the adherence of municipal TGD licensing procedures to SUM principles. From this standpoint, TGD licensing can be understood as an instrument of urban governance, through which decisions on land use, accessibility, and mobility are translated into regulatory criteria and requirements for the approval of developments.

In Brazil, this picture takes on specific contours. TGD licensing is a municipal responsibility, exercised through each municipality’s own regulatory instruments, resulting in procedures that vary across municipalities in terms of classification criteria, analysis methods, and required measures [12]. Regulatory practice has become consolidated around roadway performance assessment, an orientation present since the earliest national technical references [13] and still dominant in current procedures. In cities marked by socio-spatial inequalities, as is the case in Brazil, this orientation has additional implications, since the distribution of accessibility to urban opportunities shapes social inclusion, especially among populations dependent on public transit and active modes [14,15]. By influencing the location of developments and the requirements associated with their implementation, TGD licensing has the potential to contribute to such inclusion, although this dimension remains incipient and warrants further development. In this context, an instrument capable of systematically diagnosing the extent to which these procedures incorporate the SUM agenda provides a basis for assessing specific regulatory frameworks.

Against this backdrop, this article proposes a protocol to assess the degree of adherence of municipal TGD licensing procedures to SUM principles. To operationalize this assessment, the protocol takes the form of a maturity matrix structured along four dimensions: licensing scope, assessment metrics, urban context and accessibility, and mitigation strategies. Its components are classified into three progressive levels, from conventional to SUM-oriented. Unlike existing transport maturity models and broader SUM assessment tools, which assess cities, programs, transport systems, or mobility conditions, and conventional TGD impact-assessment frameworks, which assess the expected effects of individual developments, the proposed protocol takes the municipal regulatory procedure itself as its unit of analysis. This makes it possible to identify, in a disaggregated way, the components that incorporate SUM-oriented principles and those that remain anchored in the conventional logic. The result is a traceable diagnostic profile designed for replication and capable of providing a common basis for future comparisons across municipalities. The protocol underwent initial expert content validation, and its consolidated version was applied to the licensing procedure currently in force in Rio de Janeiro to demonstrate its operationalization and assess the reliability of the resulting classifications.

The article is organized into four sections beyond this introduction. Section 2 establishes the conceptual foundations and methodological procedures. Section 3 presents the proposed protocol. Section 4 applies the instrument to the case of Rio de Janeiro. Section 5 presents the conclusions and recommendations.

2. Conceptual Foundations and Methodological Procedures

2.1. TGD Licensing and SUM

The licensing of trip-generating developments is structured differently across jurisdictions, reflecting distinct transport-planning traditions in defining the object of assessment, measuring impacts, and prescribing mitigation measures [4,5].

Historically, TGD impact assessment has centered on Level of Service (LOS), an operational performance metric formalized in the Highway Capacity Manual [16] and combined with vehicular trip-generation estimates by land-use type [13,17]. This approach, aimed at preserving vehicular flow in the immediate surroundings, has been subject to sustained criticism in the literature because of its limited capacity to capture systemic externalities such as emissions, energy consumption, and crash incidence [18,19]. In response, a growing body of literature advocates the adoption of metrics based on vehicle travel, particularly Vehicle Kilometers Traveled (VKT), which is more sensitive to the intensity of automobile use and its associated systemic effects [4,19,20].

This reorientation is part of the SUM paradigm, which shifts the focus from motorized traffic flow to the promotion of accessibility, treats trips as derived demand subject to management, recognizes the systemic effects of land-use and transport decisions, and prioritizes strategies that reduce automobile dependence [10]. This paradigm is still under consolidation, and its principles have not been fully translated into the regulatory instruments currently in force [21]. In TGD licensing, the literature documents that these processes remain predominantly anchored in vehicular trip generation and operational metrics, with limited sensitivity to the surrounding urban context [6,11]. In Brazil, this limitation is illustrated by the city of Rio de Janeiro, where the impact study of a large-scale TGD remained centered on roadway performance despite mentioning sustainability principles [22].

International experience shows signs of transition. In California, Senate Bill 743 adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), the miles-based equivalent of VKT, as the central metric in the environmental review of developments, with screening criteria sensitive to urban density and proximity to public transit [23,24]. By measuring impact through the motorized travel generated rather than through localized congestion, this metric tends to favor developments in consolidated areas well served by public transit, counteracting the incentive toward dispersion associated with the conventional metric. Studies indicate that mixed-use developments near high-frequency corridors tend to generate less VMT than conventional developments of comparable size [20].

Although VKT broadens the analysis beyond Level of Service, its reduction should not be interpreted as an isolated objective, particularly in contexts of socio-spatial inequality. Locating a TGD in areas with a deficit of opportunities may enable trips that were previously suppressed or reduce excessive travel times, without necessarily indicating a deterioration in mobility. For this reason, the protocol allows either VKT or modal split to serve as the core metric in component 2.1, and requires the chosen metric to be interpreted in conjunction with the accessibility and urban-context conditions examined in dimension D3. This complementarity makes it possible to distinguish the reduction in automobile dependence from constraining socially necessary access.

The incorporation of SUM principles into licensing, however, varies across jurisdictions and cannot be assessed in binary terms: the same procedure may adopt them in some of its components while preserving the conventional logic in others [11]. Assessing this degree of incorporation therefore requires an analytical framework capable of examining the procedure in a disaggregated manner, component by component, rather than classifying it as a whole.

The protocol proposed in this article addresses this need and structures the assessment around the organization of the procedure itself. The scientific literature and technical-institutional documents indicate that TGD licensing is generally organized around four decisions: defining which developments are subject to assessment and which study should be required; establishing how impacts will be measured; considering the characteristics of the surrounding urban context; and determining the measures needed to mitigate the identified impacts [2,13]. These decisions give rise, respectively, to the four dimensions of the protocol: licensing scope, assessment metrics, urban context and accessibility, and mitigation strategies. The aspects recurrently addressed by the literature within each of these decisions, systematized in an integrative review conducted in the initial stage of this research (Section 2.2), informed the definition of the sixteen components of the protocol, detailed in Section 3. The dimensions and components thus do not stem from a thematic selection, but from the articulation between the recurrent decision structure of licensing and SUM principles.

These dimensions are shaped by the principles of sustainable urban mobility: the prioritization of accessibility, the management of travel demand, the recognition of the systemic effects of the relationship between land use and transport, and the reduction in automobile dependence. These principles synthesize the redefinition of planning objectives and the paradigm’s four strategic directions: reducing the need to travel, modal shift, reducing distances through land use, and increasing the efficiency of the system [10]. Their correspondence with the dimensions stems from the types of decisions made at each stage: the redefinition of objectives, from roadway performance to accessibility, bears on the licensing scope, in which the regulation sets out the purpose of the procedure (D1); demand management and modal shift bear on the way impacts are measured and on the nature of the required measures (D2 and D4); the reduction in distances bears on the surrounding urban context (D3); and the increase in efficiency bears on performance metrics (D2). These points of contact also correspond to the stages at which the integrative review (Section 2.2) documented recurrent tensions between the conventional and SUM-oriented approaches.

Table 1. Sustainable urban mobility principles operationalized in the protocol and their corresponding dimensions.

Principle	Basis	Dimension
Prioritization of accessibility over traffic flow	Hansen [7]; Geurs and van Wee [8]; Banister [10]	D1: Licensing scope D3: Urban context and accessibility
Management of travel demand	Banister [10]; Combs et al. [11]; Barbour et al. [25]	D2: Assessment metrics D4: Mitigation strategies
Recognition of the systemic effects of land-use and transport decisions	Ewing and Cervero [9]; Lee and Handy [19]; Tuffour et al. [20]	D2: Assessment metrics D3: Urban context and accessibility
Reduction in automobile dependence	Banister [10]; DeRobertis et al. [4]; Hosseinzade et al. [24]	D1: Licensing scope D4: Mitigation strategies

Source: Prepared by the authors.

summarizes these correspondences, indicating the basis of each principle and the dimensions to which it relates.

Thus, the dimensions represent both traditional stages of the licensing procedure and points at which the incorporation of SUM can be assessed. They are also interdependent throughout the process: the delimitation of the impact area guides the choice of metric, the treatment of the urban context refines this measurement, and the combination of these choices conditions the nature of the required mitigation measures [11].

The paradigm further encompasses social participation, the conception of the street as a space for social life, social equity, and mobility governance [21], dimensions that the literature identifies as the least consistently incorporated in the transition to sustainable mobility [26]. These attributes do not constitute decision-making stages of the procedure, which is why they do not constitute separate dimensions in the protocol. In the instrument, equity is partially incorporated through accessibility and the most advanced level of the component concerning the purpose of the procedure; its treatment as a cross-cutting axis remains on the agenda for future research.

The components and descriptors corresponding to each dimension are derived in Section 2.2 and are detailed in Section 3.

2.2. Evidence Base and Derivation of the Components

The definition of the protocol’s content drew on an integrative literature review [27]. The review examined the scientific output indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases and key technical and institutional documents on TGD licensing, totaling 69 articles and 12 documents published between 1986 and 2025 [28], and organized the analysis according to the four recurring decision points presented in Section 2.1. The search strategies combined terms related to TGD licensing and impact assessment with terms specific to the four decisions of the procedure. The complete search strings, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the selection flow are presented in the Supplementary Materials (Table S1).

The synthesis of the evidence distinguished, within each of the four dimensions, prevailing practices, SUM-oriented trends, and persistent gaps in the incorporation of these trends into regulatory practice. Each component was defined as the aspect of the licensing procedure in which the corresponding gap could be examined through the regulatory text. The selection of components followed four criteria: recurrence in the reviewed corpus, relevance to the regulatory unit of analysis, verifiability in the regulatory text, and non-overlap between components.

Four components were defined within each dimension, totaling sixteen, to preserve parsimony and comparability across dimensions without compromising thematic coverage. The adequacy of this delimitation was subsequently examined through expert content validation (Section 2.5), which assessed both the relevance of each component and the coverage of the set; the results are reported in Section 3.6. The same evidence synthesis grounded the maturity levels: prevailing practices informed the conventional level (N1), SUM-oriented trends informed the SUM-oriented level (N3), and situations of partial or not yet operationalized incorporation informed the in-transition level (N2).

Table 2. Evidence base underlying the derivation of the protocol components.

Component		Prevailing Practice (Basis for N1)	SUM-Oriented Trend (Basis for N3)	Key Sources
D1: Licensing scope
1.1	Stated objective of the procedure	Preservation of roadway traffic performance	Objectives encompassing accessibility, multimodality, and broader externalities	[2,11,13]
1.2	Scope of impact and required study	Localized roadway performance	Multimodal scope and expanded study area	[2,11,29]
1.3	Classification criteria	Development size or number of parking spaces	Location, accessibility, and multimodal transport provision	[3,13,17,29]
1.4	Study requirement threshold	Fixed size- or trip-based thresholds	Context-sensitive screening	[13,23,24]
D2: Assessment metrics
2.1	Core decision metric	LOS focused on vehicular delay	VKT or modal split, with complementary multimodal indicators	[4,19,25]
2.2	Externalities considered	Roadway performance only	Emissions, energy, and safety outcomes	[6,18,19,30]
2.3	Locational sensitivity of the metric	Influence area limited to intersections and immediate access points	Expanded area of influence delimited by multimodal accessibility or transit catchment	[2,11,29,31]
2.4	Trip generation basis	Standardized rates without local calibration	Locally calibrated, multimodal trip-generation baselines	[32,33,34]
D3: Urban context and accessibility
3.1	Surrounding density	Not considered in assessment	Adjustment based on documented trip reduction	[9,30,35]
3.2	Surrounding land-use diversity	Not considered in assessment	Adjustment for mixed-use trip reduction	[36,37,38,39]
3.3	Accessibility to public transit	Not considered in assessment	Transit accessibility incorporating proximity, service quality and network connectivity	[29,39,40,41,42]
3.4	Walkability, cycling infrastructure, and urban design	Absent from conventional studies	Walkability, cycling infrastructure, and urban design incorporated into trip estimation and impact assessment	[2,3,29,43]
D4: Mitigation strategies
4.1	Nature of required measures	Roadway capacity expansion	Travel demand management (TDM), transit-oriented development (TOD), and multimodal measures	[4,18,22]
4.2	Context sensitivity of measures	Generic, location-insensitive measures	Measures calibrated to the urban context	[29,41,44,45]
4.3	Quantitative estimation of effects	Measures required without quantitative estimation of their expected effects	Estimated trip reductions as an approval condition	[23,46,47,48]
4.4	Implementation and monitoring	Absent from most procedures	Formal monitoring mechanisms	[24,29,47,48]

Source: Prepared by the authors.

summarizes the evidence underlying this derivation for each component.

2.3. Maturity Models as an Assessment Instrument

Assessing the degree of adherence of a regulatory procedure to SUM requires an instrument capable of representing progressive levels of incorporation of SUM principles, rather than merely the presence or absence of isolated attributes. Binary checklists capture this presence but not the degree of incorporation; open-ended qualitative analyses capture nuances but lack replicability and do not allow systematic comparison across cases. Maturity models meet this requirement by organizing a process or system into successive levels, defined by qualitatively distinct attributes. A key reference in the diffusion of these models is the Capability Maturity Model, developed for software processes [49]. These models can take on different architectures, prominent among which are the staged architecture, which, in its typical form, assigns the object a single global and cumulative level, and the maturity grid, which assesses each component separately, expresses the result as a diagnostic profile, and thus combines gradation, disaggregation, and replicability [50,51].

In this article, maturity designates the degree of incorporation of SUM principles into the regulatory text of the procedure, rather than observed urban mobility performance or the institutional capacity of the licensing body. Unlike the staged architecture, which synthesizes the assessment into a single classification, the maturity grid preserves the internal asymmetries of the procedure—a property relevant to TGD licensing, whose elements may lie at distinct stages of incorporation of these principles. The result is not a global score, but a diagnostic maturity profile that indicates advances, gaps, and specific opportunities for regulatory improvement.

The decision not to convert this profile into an aggregate score stems from the limitations associated with composite indicators. The aggregation of heterogeneous components can facilitate summary comparisons, but it entails weighting and normalization decisions that introduce subjectivity and may conceal relevant asymmetries between distinct dimensions [52]. In TGD licensing, such aggregation could mask uneven configurations, such as advances in mitigation strategies coexisting with metrics still centered on roadway performance. For this reason, the analysis maintains a disaggregated reading of the components.

The methodological literature on these models has established procedures aimed at increasing their consistency, traceability, and replicability, encompassing the definition of scope, the structuring of dimensions, the formulation of levels, and the development of descriptors [53,54]. In the transport field, the format has been applied to domains such as sustainable urban mobility [55], Complete Streets [56], and transport system assessment [57]. These models assess cities, programs, or transport systems, whereas the present protocol focuses on a specific regulatory instrument: the municipal TGD licensing procedure. The construction of the protocol based on these procedures is detailed in Section 2.4.

2.4. Protocol Construction

The construction of the protocol was guided by procedures established in the development of maturity models. The phases systematized by de Bruin et al. [53] were adopted as a reference, in particular the delimitation of scope, the design of the architecture, and the definition of content, together with the methodological rigor requirements proposed by Becker et al. [54] and the design principles of Pöppelbuß and Röglinger [58]. These references recommend explicitly defining the domain and purpose of the instrument, defining levels and criteria unambiguously, and ensuring traceability between its structure and the theoretical foundations that support it.

In the delimitation of scope, the object of assessment was defined as the regulatory TGD licensing procedure, rather than the individual development or the mobility conditions of its surroundings. The unit of analysis therefore corresponds to the regulatory text and the provisions that establish criteria, methods, and requirements for licensing. Consistent with this delimitation, the protocol’s purpose is to diagnose the degree of incorporation of sustainable urban mobility principles into the analyzed procedure.

The design of the architecture organized the instrument into three structural layers: dimensions, components, and maturity levels. The four dimensions correspond to the recurrent licensing decisions discussed in Section 2.1. Each dimension was decomposed into four components, totaling sixteen, derived from the evidence base and the selection criteria presented in Section 2.2.

For each component, three maturity levels were established: conventional (N1), in transition (N2), and SUM-oriented (N3). The descriptors were formulated in qualitative and relative terms, without absolute numerical thresholds and with a clear distinction between levels, so as to allow application to different institutional formats. When the regulatory provisions combine elements from more than one level, each component is classified at the highest level fully supported by the documentary evidence; when the conditions for that level are not met, the immediately preceding level is assigned.

The conversion of the evidence synthesized in Table 2 into descriptors applicable to the regulatory text followed a common rule. For each component, the prevailing practice and the SUM-oriented trend were reformulated as verifiable regulatory conditions. The distinction between levels follows a common progression logic. A component is classified as N1 when the attribute is absent from the regulatory text, addressed only marginally, or treated according to conventional practice. At N2, the attribute is explicitly recognized, either descriptively or with limited and non-systematic influence on the procedure. At N3, it effectively guides the procedure, functioning as a criterion, parameter, or requirement that conditions the analysis or approval. Thus, the transition from N1 to N2 represents recognition of the attribute, whereas the transition from N2 to N3 occurs when that recognition is operationalized through formal criteria that systematically shape the analysis or the approval decision. Defined in this way, N3 corresponds to an operationally advanced and empirically observable practice, documented in the reviewed literature and in technical and institutional guidance, rather than an ideal or fully comprehensive condition.

Application is governed by the descriptor defined for each component. Examples serve only to illustrate how the descriptor is interpreted and do not add conditions beyond the descriptor itself. Classification considers the regulatory function of an attribute rather than its mere mention in the regulatory text. For example, in component 1.3, listing location, accessibility, or public transit provision among factors to be considered does not support N3 unless the regulation establishes these attributes as formal parameters that affect classification, estimates, or requirements. When different provisions apply to different situations within the same component, the rule stated above applies to the set of applicable provisions rather than to the most advanced provision considered in isolation.

Once structured, the protocol was subjected to initial content validation by an expert panel, as described in Section 2.5.

2.5. Expert Content Validation

The protocol was submitted to expert content validation to assess the relevance of its components and the adequacy of the maturity descriptors in representing the progression across levels N1, N2, and N3. Experts were recruited through direct invitations, supplemented by referrals to other professionals with relevant experience in the field. Eligible participants were required to have academic or technical institutional experience in urban mobility, transport planning, public-sector management, or TGD licensing. Their eligibility was verified based on the field of activity and years of experience reported in the questionnaire. Recruitment sought to include both academic and technical-institutional perspectives, given that the protocol combines SUM principles with regulatory criteria and requirements applied in TGD licensing.

Seven experts completed the questionnaire. This number is consistent with recommendations in the content-validation literature, which suggest the participation of at least five experts, with panels of six to ten being commonly used [59,60]. Participation was voluntary, and responses were analyzed anonymously.

The electronic questionnaire was organized into four blocks. In the first, experts rated the relevance of each of the sixteen protocol components on a four-point scale ranging from “not relevant” to “highly relevant.” In the second, also using a four-point scale, they rated whether the N1 to N3 descriptors adequately represented the progression of each component across maturity levels. The third block comprised an overall assessment of the protocol’s coverage and open-ended fields for suggestions for revision, inclusion, or exclusion. In the fourth, which was complementary in nature, participants assigned each component a strategic-importance score for the transition of a licensing procedure toward sustainable urban mobility, using a five-point scale. This assessment was intended to support a prioritized interpretation of the diagnostic profile and was not used to weight the components. The structure of the questionnaire is presented in Table S2 in the Supplementary Materials.

Relevance was assessed using the item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI), calculated as the proportion of experts assigning ratings of 3 or 4, and the average content validity index across the sixteen components (S-CVI/Ave). The adopted reference values were I-CVI ≥ 0.78 and S-CVI/Ave ≥ 0.90 [59,60]. For the assessment of the progression across N1, N2, and N3, the proportion of agreement was calculated, corresponding to categories 3 and 4 of the scale. The overall coverage assessment and strategic-importance scores were examined using descriptive statistics, whereas responses to the open-ended fields were analyzed qualitatively.

The experts’ ratings and suggestions were examined to identify possible improvements in wording and differentiation among the maturity levels while preserving the structure and conceptual content of the protocol. The validation results are presented in Section 3.6, and the consolidated version was subsequently applied to Rio de Janeiro’s municipal TGD licensing procedure.

2.6. Application Procedure for the Rio de Janeiro Case

After content validation (Section 2.5), the protocol was applied to the TGD licensing procedure of the municipality of Rio de Janeiro. The choice of this case is justified on three grounds. First, the procedure was recently reformulated through CET-Rio Ordinance No. 005 of 10 January 2024 [61], enabling the assessment of an up-to-date procedure representative of current regulatory practice, rather than an outdated regulatory framework. Second, the Rio de Janeiro procedure is detailed and formalized, as it establishes the elements that must be included in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report, thereby offering sufficient documentary material for the application of the protocol’s sixteen components. Third, the Rio de Janeiro case has already been examined in the literature on the incorporation of sustainability into traffic impact studies, allowing the results to be situated in relation to earlier assessments [22].

The application of the protocol was conducted through document analysis [62] of the regulatory instruments that structure TGD licensing in the municipality. The corpus comprises Complementary Law No. 270/2024 [63], which establishes the master plan in force and contains provisions applicable to developments classified as TGDs, without setting the criteria, methods, or requirements that structure the licensing analysis; SMTR Resolution No. 3712/2024 [64], which sets the criteria for classifying a development as a TGD; CET-Rio Ordinance No. 005/2024 [61], with its Sole Annex, defining the procedural workflow, the content of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report, and the classification of developments; and Rio Decrees No. 53574/2023 [65] and No. 53877/2024 [66], which govern the contribution to the Sustainable Urban Mobility Fund established by Law No. 6320/2018 [67] and the nature of the mitigation measures. The characterization of the procedure is presented in Section 4.1.

For each of the sixteen components, the relevant regulatory provisions were identified and the maturity level was assigned according to the rule stated in Section 2.4. When the procedure is silent on a given component, the component was classified at the conventional level, as there is no regulatory evidence of incorporation of the corresponding sustainable urban mobility principle. Each classification was accompanied by a reference to the provisions that support it, ensuring the traceability of the analysis. The result is presented as a maturity profile by dimension, without aggregation into a single score.

Inter-rater reliability was assessed to examine the consistency of the classifications. The Rio de Janeiro licensing procedure was classified independently by the first author and by a second rater, a transportation and urban mobility professional with more than 20 years of experience who had not participated in the development or content validation of the protocol. The second rater received the same documentary corpus used in the application, the consolidated version of the protocol resulting from the content validation, the application rules described in Section 2.4, and a blank recording form. The classifications produced by the first author were completed and recorded before the testing began. The second rater had no access to those classifications, and there was no communication between the two raters while the classifications were being made.

Agreement between the two sets of classifications was first quantified as the proportion of exact agreement across the sixteen components. To account for agreement expected by chance, Cohen’s kappa was calculated [68]. Given the ordinal nature of levels N1, N2, and N3, a linearly weighted kappa was also calculated [69], accounting for the magnitude of disagreements between maturity levels. Krippendorff’s alpha for ordinal data was calculated as an additional reliability measure. Following Krippendorff’s guidance, alpha values of 0.80 or higher were considered indicative of reliable agreement, whereas values from 0.667 to below 0.80 were treated as sufficient only for tentative conclusions [70]. The results are reported in Section 4.3.

3. Assessment Protocol

3.1. Logical Structure of the Protocol

The protocol is organized in a 4 × 4 × 3 structure: four dimensions, each composed of four components, with each component classified into one of three maturity levels, following the rationale presented in Section 2.

Table 3. Architecture of the protocol: dimensions, components, and objects assessed.

Dimension	Component	Object Assessed
D1: Licensing scope What is assessed and under what criteria?	1.1 Stated objective of the procedure	Purpose stated in the regulation: what the procedure seeks to protect or promote
	1.2 Scope of impact and required study	Breadth of the impact concept adopted by the regulation and the content the study must cover
	1.3 Classification criteria	Criteria used by the regulation to classify developments as TGDs
	1.4 Study requirement threshold	Criteria that define when the study is required and determine its type and level of detail
D2: Assessment metrics How are impacts measured?	2.1 Core decision metric	Metric that guides the approval decision
	2.2 Externalities considered	Breadth of externalities formally considered beyond vehicular volume (emissions, safety, energy, noise)
	2.3 Locational sensitivity of the metric	Criterion for spatially delimiting the assessment and accounting for the development’s location
	2.4 Trip generation basis	Source and calibration of the trip-generation rates used
D3: Urban context and accessibility How do location and accessibility enter the analysis?	3.1 Surrounding density	Consideration of surrounding density (residents, jobs, built area) in the analysis
	3.2 Surrounding land-use diversity	Incorporation of surrounding land-use diversity (residential, commercial, services) into the analysis
	3.3 Accessibility to public transit	Consideration of accessibility to public transit in the impact analysis, including proximity and service characteristics
	3.4 Walkability, cycling infrastructure, and urban design	Consideration of public space conditions for active modes, including sidewalks, crossings, cycling infrastructure, connectivity, and urban design
D4: Mitigation strategies Which measures are required and how are they monitored?	4.1 Nature of required measures	Types and orientation of the mitigation measures envisaged
	4.2 Context sensitivity of measures	Variation in the type or scope of required measures according to the urban and mobility conditions of the surroundings
	4.3 Quantitative estimation of measure effects	Requirement to quantify the expected effects of measures before approval (for example, estimated reduction in automobile trips) and use of the results in decision-making
	4.4 Implementation and monitoring	Existence of formal mechanisms to verify compliance with measures and monitor their results after implementation

Source: Prepared by the authors.

summarizes the architecture of the instrument and the object assessed by each component; the complete level descriptors are presented in

Table 4. Maturity descriptors for Dimension 1 (Licensing scope).

Component	N1—Conventional	N2—In Transition	N3—SUM-Oriented
1.1 Stated objective of the procedure	Preservation of local roadway flow and capacity	Roadway flow and capacity, with partial broadening of scope to include safety, accessibility, or multimodality	Promotion of equitable accessibility and sustainable mobility
1.2 Scope of impact and required study	Analysis restricted to local roadway performance	Mention of other modes, without requiring their specific analysis	Explicit requirement for multimodal analysis
1.3 Classification criteria	Size or number of parking spaces	Size and typology, without adjustment for accessibility or urban context	Size and typology, with adjustment for accessibility or urban context
1.4 Study requirement threshold	Requirement based only on size, typology, or number of parking spaces, without differentiation in the type or level of detail of the study	Requirement or level of detail graded by size, typology, or impact band, without adjustment for urban context	Requirement or level of detail adjusted by accessibility or urban context criteria

Source: Prepared by the authors. Note: Level assignment follows the criteria described in Section 2.4.

,

Table 5. Maturity descriptors for Dimension 2 (Assessment metrics).

Component	N1—Conventional	N2—In Transition	N3—SUM-Oriented
2.1 Core decision metric	Level of Service (LOS) or volume/capacity ratio as the sole criterion	LOS coexisting with a complementary metric (VKT, modal split, emissions)	VKT (distance traveled) or modal split as the main decision criterion
2.2 Externalities considered	No externalities considered; assessment restricted to roadway performance	One externality beyond roadway performance considered, such as emissions, safety, or energy consumption	Two or more externalities beyond roadway performance formally considered
2.3 Locational sensitivity of the metric	Influence area limited to intersections and access points, or delimited by vehicular access time	Assessment area extended to the corridor or broader affected network	Area delimited by multimodal accessibility or public transit catchment
2.4 Trip generation basis	Standardized rates (ITE or equivalent) without adjustment	Standardized rates adjusted by general category (urban/suburban, typology)	Rates calibrated with local data, with estimation by mode, including active modes

Source: Prepared by the authors.

,

Table 6. Maturity descriptors for Dimension 3 (Urban context and accessibility).

Component	N1—Conventional	N2—In Transition	N3—SUM-Oriented
3.1 Surrounding density	Not considered in the analysis	Considered qualitatively in characterization or screening, without adjusting estimates or requirements	Incorporated as a formal parameter that adjusts estimates or requirements
3.2 Surrounding land-use diversity	Not considered in the analysis	Considered qualitatively in characterization or screening, without adjusting estimates or requirements	Incorporated as a formal parameter that adjusts estimates or requirements
3.3 Accessibility to public transit	Not considered, or recorded only as physical distance, with no effect on the analysis	Proximity to public transit used as a simple screening or exemption criterion, without adjusting estimates or requirements	Accessibility to public transit, considering proximity and service attributes such as frequency and capacity, incorporated as a formal parameter that adjusts estimates or requirements
3.4 Walkability, cycling infrastructure, and urban design	Not considered in the analysis	Considered qualitatively in characterization or screening, without adjusting estimates or requirements	Incorporated through defined criteria, indicators, or methods, as formal parameters that adjust estimates or requirements

Source: Prepared by the authors.

and

Table 7. Maturity descriptors for Dimension 4 (Mitigation strategies).

Component	N1—Conventional	N2—In Transition	N3—SUM-Oriented
4.1 Nature of required measures	Roadway works only, such as widening, signage, and geometric redesign	Roadway works combined with non-structural or compensatory measures, without any requirement for travel demand management	Requirement for travel demand management (TDM) and for the promotion of sustainable modes, such as parking management, public transit incentives, and pedestrian and cycling infrastructure
4.2 Context sensitivity of measures	Measures defined without regard to the urban and mobility conditions of the surroundings	Measures differentiated by size, typology, or predefined territorial category, without formally considering accessibility or public transit provision	Measures defined or adjusted through formal criteria related to accessibility and the mobility conditions of the surroundings, such as public transit provision and conditions for active modes
4.3 Quantitative estimation of measure effects	No quantitative estimation of the effects of measures is required	Quantitative estimation is required, but without a defined method or without the results informing the decision	Quantitative estimation based on a defined method is required, and its results condition approval or determine requirements
4.4 Implementation and monitoring	No formal mechanisms exist to verify implementation or monitor the measures	Execution of the measures is verified, without systematic follow-up of their results	Execution is verified and results are systematically monitored, with deadlines, indicators, and defined consequences for non-compliance or insufficient performance

Source: Prepared by the authors.

.

3.2. Licensing Scope (D1)

The first dimension assesses how the procedure delimits its own boundaries: its stated objective, which impacts are assessed, which developments it classifies as TGD, and under what conditions it requires a study. This is the dimension that establishes the foundations of the procedure, guiding the subsequent stages. A strictly roadway-focused objective, for example, tends to restrict the metrics employed and the mitigation measures required thereafter. Its four components span the decision chain from the most general to the most specific, enabling the identification of the point in the regulatory architecture at which the procedure advances or remains within the conventional logic (Table 4).

3.3. Assessment Metrics (D2)

The second dimension assesses how the procedure measures the impacts under analysis: which indicator guides the decision, which externalities are considered, whether the metric is location-sensitive, and how trips are estimated. It is the dimension in which the transition from Level of Service to systemic metrics, such as VKT, has been most clearly documented in the literature (Section 2). The four components enable the identification of whether the procedure remains within the conventional logic or incorporates criteria aligned with SUM (Table 5).

3.4. Urban Context and Accessibility (D3)

The third dimension assesses the extent to which the urban context is incorporated into the impact analysis. The literature on the built environment and trip generation documents that attributes such as density, land-use diversity, accessibility, and urban design can reduce motorized trip generation (Section 2), but they are rarely operationalized in licensing. The four selected components focus on attributes that are verifiable in regulatory texts, a prerequisite for their assessment within the procedure (Table 6).

3.5. Mitigation Strategies (D4)

The fourth dimension assesses the measures required in response to the identified impacts. It is where the choices made in the previous dimensions take concrete form: the nature of the measures depends on which impacts were analyzed, on how they were measured, and on the extent to which the urban context was considered. The literature contrasts measures centered on expanding roadway capacity with demand management approaches, which are more aligned with SUM (Section 2). The four components examine the mitigation cycle, from prescribing measures to verifying their effects (Table 7).

3.6. Expert Content Validation Results

The panel comprised seven experts: five professionals with technical institutional experience, including professionals from the municipal company responsible for reviewing TGD-related impact analyses within the licensing procedure, and two academics with experience in transport planning and urban mobility. Four participants reported more than 20 years of professional experience, two reported between 11 and 20 years, and one between 6 and 10 years. This composition combined practical experience in TGD assessment with an academic perspective on transport planning, indicating the group’s familiarity with the topics covered by the protocol.

Regarding the relevance of the components, I-CVI values ranged from 0.86 to 1.00, and all sixteen components exceeded the minimum criterion of 0.78. These results indicate that the panel recognized the content encompassed by the four dimensions as pertinent, with no need to exclude components due to insufficient relevance. The S-CVI/Ave was 0.94, above the reference value of 0.90, indicating satisfactory content validity for the protocol as a whole.

Regarding the progression across levels N1, N2, and N3, the mean agreement proportion was 0.85. Components 1.3, 1.4, and 2.3 achieved full agreement; nine other components reached 0.86; and components 2.1, 3.1, 3.3, and 4.2 showed the lowest proportion, at 0.71. These results indicated that the differentiation between levels, although widely acknowledged, warranted a clearer statement of the level-assignment criteria, which prompted the inclusion of the operational rule presented in Section 2.4. Detailed results for relevance and agreement with the progression across levels, by component, are presented in Table S3 in the Supplementary Materials.

Regarding the overall assessment of the protocol’s coverage, the mean rating was 3.29 on a four-point scale, with a median of 3 and no rating below 3. This result indicates that the experts considered the set of four dimensions and sixteen components to satisfactorily encompass the essential aspects of diagnosing the adherence of a TGD licensing procedure to sustainable urban mobility.

In the complementary block on strategic importance, rated on a scale from one to five, the mean component scores, aggregated by dimension, ranged from 3.86 to 4.07. The dimensions Urban context and accessibility (D3) and Mitigation strategies (D4) showed the highest means, both at 4.07, followed by Licensing scope (D1) and Assessment metrics (D2), both at 3.86. As indicated in Section 2.5, these ratings were not used as weights, serving only to support a prioritized interpretation of the diagnostic profile.

The comments recorded in the open-ended fields were limited in scope and focused on the differentiation between levels N1 and N2 in components of D3 (Urban context and accessibility) and D4 (Mitigation strategies), broadly converging with the quantitative results for level progression. The inclusion of a component addressing the propagation of impacts from the local network to the primary road network was also suggested, an aspect addressed in the assessment metrics dimension (D2), which shifted the focus from local operational performance to the intensity of network use. The experts’ assessments and suggestions prompted refinements to the wording and differentiation among the maturity levels, without altering the structure, the components, or the conceptual content of the descriptors. These refinements were made by the authors and were not submitted to a second round of expert review. The assignment rules and additional operational guidance for applying the descriptors are presented in Section 2.4.

These results provide evidence of the content validity of the protocol under the adopted criteria. The panel size of seven is consistent with the content validation references adopted in Section 2.5, and its composition prioritized direct familiarity with TGD assessment and licensing procedures. The panel was recruited within the Brazilian professional and academic context, consistent with the regulatory setting examined in the application, and was not designed to represent other regulatory settings. Content validation does not establish the reliability of the protocol’s application or its applicability across different regulatory contexts. The reliability of the Rio de Janeiro application was assessed separately through the inter-rater procedure described in Section 2.6 and reported in Section 4.3. Broader applicability requires replication in other municipal and regulatory contexts.

3.7. Interpreting the Maturity Profile

Once the protocol is applied, the set of sixteen classifications, organized by dimension, constitutes the diagnostic maturity profile of the assessed procedure. The profile preserves the granularity of the coding and enables the identification of the components in which the procedure advances toward SUM and those in which it remains within the conventional logic, indicating potential priorities for regulatory improvement. It is interpreted in a disaggregated manner and does not assign weights to the components (Section 2.3). The importance ratings provided by the experts (Section 2.5) complement the interpretation of the profile, without altering the classifications, as presented in Section 4.

The profile can also indicate directions for regulatory improvement. Because each component is defined by ordered maturity descriptors, the difference between the observed classification and the descriptor of the next level identifies the regulatory condition that remains absent or only partially operationalized for progression to that level. The relevance of these gaps can be interpreted in light of the regulatory function of each component, while the strategic importance ratings complement this reading. This interpretation does not alter the classifications or convert the protocol into a prescriptive instrument.

The relationship between D2 and D3 also means that vehicle-travel metrics are not treated as objectives in themselves. VKT captures the intensity of automobile use but does not indicate whether urban opportunities are accessible or how access is distributed among social groups [14,15,19]. A reduction in VKT does not by itself indicate improved access to opportunities. Reading the two dimensions together distinguishes reduced automobile dependence from restrictions on socially necessary access.

4. Application to the Rio de Janeiro Case

4.1. Characterization of the Rio de Janeiro Procedure

The procedure begins by determining whether the development is classified as a TGD, which establishes the need for an impact analysis, based on criteria related to size and activity type (SMTR Resolution No. 3712/2024 [64]). The level of study required is defined later, once trip generation has been estimated and impacts have been characterized, through the classification of the development as having low, medium, or large impact. After the development is classified, the case is referred to the CET-Rio Technical Directorate and then to the Regional Traffic Technical Coordination (CTRT) of the respective area, which is responsible for the analysis (CET-Rio Ordinance No. 005/2024 [61]).

The analysis is conducted through the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Relatório de Análise de Impacto Viário, RAV), whose content is set by the Sole Annex of CET-Rio Ordinance No. 005/2024 [61]. The report follows a defined sequence: characterization of the development; delimitation of the influence area; assessment of existing roadway, pedestrian, cycling, and public-transit conditions; trip-generation estimation; and evaluation of roadway performance and access and circulation conditions in the with-development scenario. The influence area is divided into primary, secondary, and tertiary areas defined by travel-time bands from the development: the primary area is defined by a walking time of 5 to 10 min, while the outer areas correspond to travel-time bands of 10 to 20 and 20 to 30 min along the road network. This is followed by the typification of impacts and the classification of the TGD into three bands: P0 (low impact), P1 (medium impact), and P2 (large impact). For large-impact developments, and for medium-impact ones when requested by CET-Rio, a detailed traffic study is required as a condition for the analysis to proceed.

When the impacts have been identified, the procedure defines the mitigation measures assigned to the developer, graded according to impact intensity, and a financial contribution to the Sustainable Urban Mobility Fund (FMUS), calculated as a percentage of the construction cost according to the Planning Area in which the development is located (Law No. 6320/2018 [67]; Rio Decrees No. 53574/2023 [65] and No. 53877/2024 [66]). Payment to the fund does not exempt the developer from carrying out the mitigation measures. Once the analysis by the CTRT is concluded, the case returns to the Technical Directorate for the issuance of the final opinion, consolidated in a formal letter that sets out the requirements for approval.

4.2. Application of the Protocol and Analysis by Dimension

This subsection applies the protocol to the procedure currently in force in the municipality of Rio de Janeiro, covering the four dimensions and their sixteen components. The results, together with the provisions supporting each classification, are presented by dimension in

Table 8. Application of the protocol to the Rio de Janeiro TGD licensing procedure.

Component	Level	Documentary Evidence and Interpretation
Dimension 1 (Licensing scope)
1.1 Stated objective	N2	Decree No. 53574/2023 [65] (Art. 1) retains mitigation and compensation of negative traffic impacts as the regulatory objective. Decree No. 53877/2024 [66] (Art. 3, §1) broadens the purpose assigned to mitigation measures by requiring adequate conditions of accessibility, mobility, flow, and safety for pedestrians, cyclists, public-transit passengers, and vehicle occupants. This explicit broadening beyond roadway flow and capacity supports N2; N3 is not reached because the procedure does not establish the promotion of equitable accessibility and sustainable mobility as its stated objective.
1.2 Scope of impact and required study	N3	CET-Rio Ordinance No. 005/2024 [61] requires the assessment of public-transit facilities, pedestrian routes and crossings, and cycling infrastructure in the baseline characterization (Sole Annex, item 3) and, in the with-development scenario, the assessment of access and circulation conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles, with impacts on these modes included in the typification of impacts (Sole Annex, items 5 and 6). The required study therefore has an explicit multimodal scope, which satisfies the N3 descriptor for this component, since the distinction from N2 concerns whether specific multimodal analysis is required rather than how it is performed. The predominantly qualitative character of these analyses concerns their analytical depth and is examined in D2, which addresses the metrics and methods of assessment.
1.3 Classification criteria	N2	SMTR Resolution No. 3712/2024 [64] classifies developments as TGDs using criteria differentiated by size and activity type: number of units for residential and mixed uses, total built area for non-residential uses, and, for specific activities, person capacity, lot area, or the nature of the activity. Certain activities are classified as TGDs irrespective of total built area, showing that activity type operates as an independent classification criterion. This combination of size and typology supports N2. N3 is not reached because the regulation does not establish formal criteria that adjust the classification according to accessibility or urban-context conditions.
1.4 Study requirement threshold	N2	The procedure [61] distinguishes P0, P1, and P2 impact categories based on development size, activity type, estimated trips, access routes, the surrounding area, and typified impacts, and requires a detailed study for P2 developments, which may also be required for P1 developments. This gradation of the study requirement supports N2; N3 is not reached because accessibility and urban-context conditions do not operate as formal criteria for adjusting the requirement.
Dimension 2 (Assessment metrics)
2.1 Core decision metric	N1	Roadway system performance assessed by flow, capacity, and level of service. CET-Rio Ordinance No. 005/2024 [61] (Sole Annex, items 5 and 6).
2.2 Externalities considered	N2	In addition to vehicular flow, the typification of impacts (Sole Annex [61], item 6) includes road safety, with reference to accident risk for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicle occupants. The formal consideration of one externality beyond roadway performance supports N2; N3 is not reached because emissions, noise, and energy consumption are not incorporated.
2.3 Locational sensitivity of the metric	N1	The influence area is delimited by travel-time bands and roadway hierarchy, with walking time defining the primary area and vehicle-based isochrones prescribed for shopping centers, without criteria based on multimodal accessibility or public transit catchment. CET-Rio Ordinance No. 005/2024 (Sole Annex [61], item 2).
2.4 Trip generation basis	N1	Typology-based rate spreadsheets and ITE rates, without calibration with local data or estimation by mode. CET-Rio Ordinance No. 005/2024 [61] (Sole Annex, item 4).
Dimension 3 (Urban context and accessibility)
3.1 Surrounding density	N1	Not incorporated as a parameter of the analysis.
3.2 Surrounding land-use diversity	N2	The Sole Annex [61] (item 2) requires the identification of predominant activities in the directly affected area and adjacent land uses as part of the baseline characterization. This required identification supports N2; N3 is not reached because land-use diversity does not formally adjust trip estimates or requirements.
3.3 Accessibility to public transit	N2	Public-transit services and boarding and alighting points are identified in the baseline characterization, and the location of these points is listed among the factors informing the P0/P1/P2 classification, which in turn determines whether a detailed traffic study is mandatory or may be required (Sole Annex [61], items 2, 3, and 7). No formal accessibility measure incorporating service frequency, capacity, or network connectivity is used to adjust estimates or requirements.
3.4 Walkability, cycling infrastructure, and urban design	N2	The Sole Annex [61] (item 3) requires the identification of pedestrian routes and the assessment of walking and crossing conditions, including signage, sidewalk pavement, accessibility ramps, critical points, and cycling infrastructure. This required assessment supports N2; N3 is not reached because these attributes do not operate as formal parameters that adjust estimates or requirements.
Dimension 4 (Mitigation strategies)
4.1 Nature of required measures	N2	Mitigation measures centered on roadway interventions, including sidewalks, ramps, and raised crossings (Decree No. 53877 [66], Art. 3, §1), complemented by operational and educational measures (CET-Rio Ordinance No. 005/2024 [61], Sole Annex, item 8) and by a compensatory contribution to the FMUS (Decree No. 53574/2023 [65], Art. 2), without mandatory travel demand management.
4.2 Context sensitivity of measures	N2	Measures differentiated by typology, through prescribed radii of 2 km, 250 m, and 100 m (Decree No. 53877/2024 [66], Art. 3, §2), and by location, through a graded contribution according to the Planning Area (Decree No. 53574/2023 [65], Art. 2), without being defined based on accessibility or public transit provision.
4.3 Quantitative estimation of measure effects	N1	No quantitative estimation of the expected effect of the measures is required as a condition for approval.
4.4 Implementation and monitoring	N2	Compliance is verified at successive licensing milestones, from the no-objection statement to the occupancy permit, and monitoring or traffic-operation measures may be required for specific developments (Decree No. 53877/2024 [66], Art. 4; CET-Rio Ordinance No. 005/2024 [61], Sole Annex, items 8 and 9). This formal verification of compliance supports N2; N3 is not reached because the procedure does not establish follow-up of results through indicators, defined time frames, and consequences for insufficient performance.

Note: N1: Conventional; N2: In transition; N3: SUM-oriented.

. For components classified at N2, the evidence and interpretation identify both the regulatory provision that supports classification above N1 and the condition specified in the corresponding descriptor that is not fully met for N3, following the assignment rule in Section 2.4.

The first dimension shows the clearest movement away from the conventional logic, with no component remaining at N1. The stated objective is centered on mitigating traffic impacts, but Decree No. 53877/2024 [66] broadens the purpose of the required measures to accessibility, mobility, and safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and public-transit passengers, which places the component in transition without adopting equitable accessibility as its central purpose. The scope of impact reaches the SUM-oriented level: beyond characterizing pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit in the baseline assessment, the procedure requires the assessment of access and circulation conditions for these modes in the with-development scenario and typifies impacts on them. The classification criteria and the study requirement threshold are also in transition, since the procedure classifies developments as P0, P1, or P2 and graduates the required study accordingly. Although location, access routes, and public-transit elements are among the factors considered, the procedure does not establish explicit criteria for how accessibility or urban-context conditions alter the study requirement.

The second dimension constitutes the conventional core of the procedure. The analysis is guided by the level of service and by the roadway volume-to-capacity ratio, and trip generation relies on standardized rates without local calibration. The delimitation of the influence area follows travel-time bands and roadway hierarchy, with walking time defining the primary area and vehicle-based isochrones prescribed for shopping centers, without criteria based on multimodal accessibility or public transit catchment. The partial advance lies in considering road safety alongside vehicular flow. This pattern converges with evidence that licensing procedures remain largely built around trip-generation estimates and operational measures of roadway performance, showing limited responsiveness to the urban context [6,11].

The third dimension reveals only partial incorporation of the urban context. CET-Rio Ordinance No. 005/2024 [61] requires the identification of surrounding land use, public transit, pedestrian circulation conditions, and cycling infrastructure, and most of these elements remain limited to descriptive characterization. Land-use diversity, cycling infrastructure, and accessibility to public transit are classified at the transition level: the first two because they are at least qualitatively characterized, and the third because the location of boarding and alighting points is considered in the classification of the development, without being operationalized through parameters combining proximity, frequency, and capacity, nor used to adjust trip estimates. Density remains conventional, as it is not incorporated as a parameter of the analysis.

The fourth dimension is predominantly in transition, with three of its four components classified at N2. Alongside roadway and signaling works, the procedure establishes a financial contribution to the Sustainable Urban Mobility Fund and explicitly refers to pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit in the regulatory text. The territorial differentiation of the contribution, scaled by Planning Area, is not explicitly based on criteria of accessibility, public transit provision, or equity of access. The measures, moreover, remain predominantly roadway-based and tied to the areas directly affected by the development, without demand management instruments, without quantitative estimation of the expected effects as a condition for approval, and without continued monitoring through indicators. The incorporation of sustainable mobility appears in the regulatory vocabulary, in the declared scope of the required study, in interventions aimed at pedestrians and cyclists, and in the financial instrument, without reaching the metrics that structure the approval decision.

4.3. Inter-Rater Reliability

The two raters assigned the same maturity level to thirteen of the sixteen components, corresponding to an exact agreement of 81.3%. Cohen’s kappa was 0.65 and the linearly weighted kappa was 0.69, both within the range described by Landis and Koch [71] as substantial agreement. Krippendorff’s alpha for ordinal data was 0.83, meeting the reliability criterion adopted in Section 2.6.

Disagreements occurred in only three components. In 1.2 (Scope of impact and required study), the first author assigned N3 and the second rater N2; in 1.4 (Study requirement threshold) and 2.2 (Externalities considered), the first author assigned N2 and the second rater N3. In all three cases, the classifications differed by a single maturity level, between N2 and N3, with no disagreement between the extremes of the scale. Full agreement was obtained for every component classified as N1 by the first author, including the three N1 components in D2, and for all components of D3 (Urban context and accessibility) and D4 (Mitigation strategies). The disagreements were confined to the boundary between the transitional and SUM-oriented levels.

The divergence in component 1.2 concerns the only component classified as N3 in the diagnostic profile. The N3 classification was retained because the N2 and N3 descriptors for component 1.2 differ in whether specific multimodal analysis is required—a condition established by CET-Rio Ordinance No. 005/2024 [61], as reported in Section 4.2. Under the second rater’s classifications, the resulting distribution would be five components at N1, nine at N2, and two at N3. The substantive interpretation of the profile remains unchanged: under either classification of component 1.2, the components associated with the core assessment metrics remain at the conventional level.

The inter-rater assessment was intended to evaluate the reliability of the application rather than to produce a consensus classification. The classifications reported in Section 4.2 were retained. Examination of the disagreements against the level descriptors, application rules, and corresponding documentary evidence showed that all three concerned whether the conditions defined for N3 were fully met. This pattern suggests that the boundary between the transitional and SUM-oriented levels is the point at which the classification rules require the clearest operational specification.

4.4. Integrated Reading of the Diagnostic Maturity Profile

The application of the protocol to the Rio de Janeiro procedure yields a profile concentrated in the conventional and in-transition levels, with a single component, the scope of impact and required study, reaching the SUM-oriented level. N3 characterizes the practices most closely aligned with SUM identified in the literature, such as the requirement for explicit multimodal analysis in impact studies (Section 2). Its occurrence in the scope of the study alone indicates that the procedure incorporates these principles when defining what must be examined, but not in the criteria that decide approval.

The profile shown in

Table 9. Diagnostic maturity profile of the Rio de Janeiro TGD licensing procedure.

Dimension and Component	N1—Conventional	N2—In Transition	N3—SUM-Oriented
D1—Licensing scope
1.1 Stated objective of the procedure		●
1.2 Scope of impact and required study		●
1.3 Classification criteria			●
1.4 Study requirement threshold		●
D2—Assessment metrics
2.1 Core decision metric	●
2.2 Externalities considered		●
2.3 Locational sensitivity of the metric	●
2.4 Trip generation basis	●
D3—Urban context and accessibility
3.1 Surrounding density	●
3.2 Surrounding land-use diversity		●
3.3 Accessibility to public transit		●
3.4 Walkability, cycling infrastructure, and urban design		●
D4—Mitigation strategies
4.1 Nature of required measures		●
4.2 Context sensitivity of measures		●
4.3 Quantitative estimation of measure effects	●
4.4 Implementation and monitoring		●

Note: ● indicates the level assigned to the component. The profile comprises five components at N1, ten at N2, and one at N3.

is heterogeneous and reveals differences that a single score would conceal. The concentration of components at N2, ten of sixteen, indicates that the procedure has largely moved from conventional treatment toward explicit recognition of SUM-oriented attributes. What has not occurred is the further transition, from recognition to operationalization, in which these elements would function as parameters that adjust estimates, requirements, or the approval decision. The conventional core is concentrated in the metrics that structure the decision, where three of the four components remain at N1, whereas the licensing scope dimension has no component at that level. Taken together, the classifications show that the advances observed in scope, urban context, and mitigation strategies have not yet altered the decision-making core of the procedure.

The 2023–2024 reforms illustrate this pattern. They broadened the declared scope of assessment through multimodal considerations, pedestrian and cycling conditions, and mitigation instruments, without replacing the metrics that structure assessment and approval. The two types of change differ in their operational reach, as replacing a core decision metric also requires changes in analytical methods, data requirements, and approval criteria. Implementation challenges associated with a legally mandated shift from LOS to VMT have been documented in California [24]. The documentary design of this study does not allow the institutional, political, or technical reasons for the pattern observed in Rio de Janeiro to be established; examining these mechanisms would require complementary evidence, such as interviews or analysis of the regulatory reform process.

The highest mean strategic-importance scores, observed for the dimensions Urban context and accessibility (D3) and Mitigation strategies (D4), are consistent with greater attention to converting the elements already present in the characterization and required measures into operational criteria for assessment and decision-making. These ratings do not alter the classifications and only indicate potential priorities for regulatory improvement. The result also converges with the diagnosis by Gonçalves and Portugal [22] for Rio de Janeiro, which identified an impact assessment centered on roadway performance despite references to sustainability principles. By showing that this centrality is embedded in the regulatory and operational criteria themselves, the application of the protocol indicates that the conventional logic is a feature of the procedure’s regulatory structure, rather than arising solely from how impact studies are prepared on a case-by-case basis.

5. Conclusions

This article proposed a protocol to assess the degree of adherence of a TGD licensing procedure to the principles of sustainable urban mobility. Structured as a maturity matrix comprising sixteen components and three levels, the instrument shifts the unit of analysis from the development to the regulatory procedure and offers a traceable diagnostic basis designed for replication in different municipal contexts. By providing a common assessment framework, the protocol makes it possible to compare distinct municipal licensing systems and to examine how they incorporate the principles of sustainable urban mobility into licensing as an instrument of urban governance.

The application to the municipality of Rio de Janeiro demonstrated its operationalization and produced a profile concentrated in the conventional and in-transition levels, with a single component reaching the SUM-oriented level. Although the procedure examined is recent, reformulated between 2023 and 2024, its decision-making core remains anchored in the roadway logic and does not incorporate central factors of sustainable mobility, such as alternative decision metrics, sensitivity to the urban context, and demand management. The incorporation of sustainable mobility appears in the regulatory vocabulary, in the declared scope of the required study, in interventions aimed at pedestrians and cyclists, and in the financial instrument, without reaching the metrics that structure the approval decision.

The main contribution of the study is both methodological and applied. From an applied perspective, the profile obtained makes it possible to identify priority areas for regulatory improvement: in the case examined, the conventional core lies in the metrics that guide approval, while the advances are concentrated in components that do not alter this core. The representation as a profile, rather than as an aggregate score, is what makes this reading possible. By diagnosing the extent to which accessibility and sustainable modes are incorporated into licensing criteria, the protocol also highlights the role of regulatory decisions on developments in shaping access to urban opportunities.

The study has limitations. The empirical application covers a single case, although the protocol was designed for replication in other regulatory contexts. Content validation was conducted with seven experts, and inter-rater reliability was assessed in a single application with one independent second rater; broader validation across evaluators and regulatory contexts remains necessary. Equity is only partially operationalized in the current protocol, through accessibility-related components and the advanced maturity condition for the stated objective, rather than as a distinct evaluative dimension. Future work may include comparative applications across municipalities with different regulatory trajectories; broader content-validation and reliability testing across independent evaluators and regulatory contexts; comparisons between the regulatory diagnosis and the administrative practices of licensing bodies; and examination of whether distributive equity warrants a dedicated component, including the distributional fairness of mitigation measures.