Exploring the 15-Minutes City Concept: Global Challenges and Opportunities in Diverse Urban Contexts

Abstract

The concept of the 15-minutes city [15 MC] focuses on providing important services within proximity and accessibility through active travel like walking or biking. While this model is becoming popular in urban planning and academic discourse, its implementation faces challenges in both densely populated developing and developed countries. This study aims to conduct a systematic review of recent literature to (1) identify the core components of the 15 MC model, (2) examine planning tools and strategies used in its implementation, (3) compare successes and challenges across global contexts, particularly in densely populated and resource-constrained areas, and (4) offer practical recommendations for adapting the model to meet local needs. The study reviewed 33 research papers published in the last five years [2019–2024]. Following PRISMA guidelines, a structured screening and selection process was conducted using databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Thematic analysis revealed major challenges for implementing the 15 MC in the Global South, including urban informality, gaps in infrastructure, and complex governance issues. Moreover, the review points out the potential risks of exclusion and gentrification if the specific needs of different contexts are not considered. While high-income countries tend to focus on sustainability and making neighborhoods walkable, developing countries struggle with deeper structural problems that make equitable implementation harder. This study emphasizes the need for locally adaptive frameworks in planning 15 MCs and aims to develop inclusive urban policies that support Sustainable Development Goal 11, which seeks to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

1. Introduction

In recent discourse about urban planning, the “15-minutes city (15 MC)” concept has gained attention as a way to promote sustainable urban development. This model aims to redesign urban spaces so that important services, amenities, and opportunities for social interaction are within a 15-minutes walk or bike ride from every residence [1,2,3]. The “15-minutes” refers to the maximum travel time by walking or cycling required to reach essential services such as work, education, healthcare, leisure, and shopping within a neighborhood. This benchmark has gained traction as a planning tool due to its simplicity, measurability, and alignment with sustainable mobility goals. It promotes a human-scale urbanism that reduces car dependency and encourages local living [2,4].

The 15 MC concept, introduced by Carlos Moreno [2], envisions neighborhoods where residents can access essential services, such as healthcare, education, work, and leisure within a 15-minutes walk or bike ride. By promoting mixed-use development, walkability, and proximity, the model offers an alternative to automobile-centric planning, supporting sustainability, social cohesion, and improved quality of life [3,5].

Mixed land use combines residential, commercial, and recreational spaces, such as grocery stores, schools, parks, and workplaces are easily accessible, thereby reducing the long commutes and promoting an active community life [4,6]. Having amenities nearby allows residents to meet most of their daily needs without travelling far [2,7]. That promotes a sense of community by encouraging local engagement [6]. Accessibility and walkability are important for making the 15 MC concept work, which requires well-planned pedestrian networks, cycling lanes, and zoning policies that keep things close together [2]. Good infrastructure, such as wider sidewalks and dedicated bike lanes, enhances walkability and connects residents [8] making cities more resilient to climate challenges [9].

Creating spaces that are pedestrian-friendly is important for reducing traffic congestion and lowering greenhouse gas emissions [2]. Walkable infrastructure not only reduces dependence on fossil fuel-based transportation, contributing to climate change mitigation, but also enhances urban climate resilience by supporting local self-sufficiency, reducing heat island effects through human-scale green infrastructure, and enabling decentralized service access during extreme events [2,4,5].

Additionally, placing amenities near public transport hubs ensures that people can easily access services [10]. However, implementing the 15 MC model poses challenges. In densely populated areas, the local infrastructure might become stressed, making it difficult to keep all amenities within a reachable distance [11]. While higher density can support walkability and public transport, issues like land-use conflicts, traffic jams, and a lack of green areas can come up [2,12]. Economic and social disparities can further complicate the equitable implementation, as not all neighborhoods have good access to services, highlighting the need for resources in underdeveloped areas [6]. Marginalized communities often do not have the infrastructure to take advantage of the 15 MC model, which can make existing inequalities worse [13]. Furthermore, demographic changes, such as an aging population, also need new strategies to meet the evolving urban needs [11]. Therefore, effective urban governance and supportive policies, along with teamwork among urban planners and community stakeholders, are essential for overcoming these challenges [2].

In many cities of the Global South, inherited planning paradigms, especially those based on modernist, car-oriented development, have significantly shaped urban form. Wide roads, single-use zoning, and low-density sprawl have led to mobility patterns centered around private vehicles, often at the expense of walkability, public transport, and mixed-use development. This historical context contributes to current challenges with implementing 15 MC principles, particularly in areas marked by informal growth, fragmented governance, or limited infrastructure investment [13,14].

The 15 MC idea comes from the Garden City model proposed by Ebenezer Howard [15] and was formalized by Carlos Moreno in 2016 to create equitable and functional urban environments. Inspired by thinkers like Jane Jacobs, Moreno encourages a shift from a monocentric to a polycentric urban system, so residents can easily find work, education, healthcare, shopping, and leisure activities within a short distance [16]. However, the idea of the 15 MC has become especially popular after the COVID-19 pandemic, which reshaped mobility and activities due to lockdowns [16,17,18]. This renewed interest in the 15 MC model encourages us to rethink current urban spaces to address ongoing urban issues [2]. The increasing popularity of the 15 MC model in both planning and policy circles demands a closer examination of its applicability across various urban contexts. While cities in high-income countries have adopted it with relative success, questions remain about how this model performs in dense, resource-constrained, or informal urban settings. Currently, numerous cities around the globe, including Hong Kong, Shanghai, and cities across Italy and the United States, are integrating the 15 MC concept into their urban planning frameworks [1].

This study assesses case studies from both developing and developed nations to better understand the different challenges and opportunities involved in implementing the 15 MC model. Highlighting successful examples from developed countries, such as Paris [2], Melbourne [18], and Portland, Pozoukidou [19] shows how principles of 15 MC can be effectively adopted through mixed-use development, expanded pedestrian zones, better public transportation, and increased green spaces. Even though the model works well in cities with strong urban planning policies and community engagement, its success is dependent on local contexts, including population density, economic conditions, and existing infrastructure [19]. In contrast, developing countries, mostly in the Global South, like India, Indonesia, and Nigeria, face challenges such as informal settlements, economic inequality, and inadequate public transport [20]. In this paper, the term “Global South” refers broadly to low- and middle-income countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and parts of the Middle East, characterized by rapid urbanization, informal settlements, and limited infrastructure and governance capacity.

This study systematically reviews global literature and case studies to assess (1) the key components of the 15 MC model, (2) the planning tools supporting its implementation, (3) compare successes and challenges across cities in both high- and low-income settings, and (4) the barriers and opportunities in both developed and developing contexts. It further aims to offer recommendations for adapting the 15 MC framework to diverse urban environments. Therefore, overall, the review aims to assess the global development and challenges of the 15 MC model through a five-part framework focusing on key components (Figure 1), implementation tools, global performance, contextual differences, and locally appropriate recommendations.

Based on these objectives, this review searches for the answer to the following research question: how is the 15-minutes city (15 MC) concept being interpreted, implemented, and adapted across diverse global urban contexts, and what challenges and strategies emerge in applying it within resource-constrained settings?

While several recent reviews have examined 15 MC metrics, classification models, and implementation readiness [12,21], these studies primarily focus on quantitative assessment frameworks or high-level classifications. Furthermore, there is a research gap in evaluating how this model translates to densely populated or resource constrained cities, particularly in the Global South. This review closes the gap and adds a distinct contribution by comparing implementation experiences across both high-income and resource-constrained urban contexts. It further synthesizes key challenges and planning responses through a five-part framework, with special attention to barriers such as urban informality, zoning limitations, and infrastructural inequity that are often underexplored in previous reviews.

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines, which provide a structured approach for transparent and replicable literature reviews.

Three major databases, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between January 2019 and March 2024. The search used Boolean strings as shown in search Box 1.

After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts were screened using the Rayyan tool (https://rayyan.ai/, accessed on 16 June 2025). Studies were included if they (1) explicitly addressed the 15 MC concept; (2) focused on urban planning, accessibility, or implementation tools; (3) presented empirical data or comparative urban case studies; and (4) were published in English. Exclusion criteria included editorials, commentaries, and studies not focused on urban systems.

To make sure the papers found were the most relevant for answering the research questions, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied [see

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Concept	Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Content	Articles published between 2019 and 2024. Answers the research question Papers containing at least one relevant keyword related to the 15 MC concept. Focus on urban planning, policy discourse, and implementation of the 15 MC model.	Non-English language papers were removed. Papers that did not have titles and abstracts relevant to the core research questions were excluded. Full-text screening further eliminated papers that only mentioned the 15 MC concept without directly engaging with it in a meaningful way.
Article type	Academic: empirical, peer-reviewed articles. Conference papers Grey literature, including case studies from reputable sources	Blogs Editorials Commentary Media Secondary research
Geographical focus	Developing countries, LMICs [World Bank criteria] HICs [World Bank criteria]

].

This search focused on journal and conference papers published in the last five years [2019–2024], resulting in an initial collection of 1710 research papers.

The starting year of 2019 was chosen because the concept of the 15 MC gained significant attention in urban planning discourse around this time, particularly following Carlos Moreno’s formalization of the idea in 2016. From 2019 onwards, there has been a notable increase in academic research, policy discussions, and real-world implementations of the 15 MC model, making it a relevant timeframe for analyzing contemporary developments. Additionally, limiting the review to studies from 2019 onward ensures that the findings reflect the most recent advancements, urban policies, and emerging challenges in both developed and developing country contexts [2,8,12]. The search terms covered both urban planning topics and relevant keywords to find studies that addressed the research questions. An example of a search string is shown below [see Box 1].

Box 1. Example search string.

X minute cities, 15 minute cities, The 15 MC concept, 15 minute cities AND Sustainable cities*, 15 minute cities AND walkable cities*, 15 minute cities AND Urban planning*, 15 minute AND cities, 15 minute AND cities AND global AND south*, 15 minute AND cities AND Developing AND countries*, 15 minute AND cities AND sustainable AND cities*, 15 minute AND cities AND walkable AND cities*, 15 minute AND cities AND urban AND planning*, 15 minute cities AND Global South*, 15 minute cities AND Developing countries*, 15 minute cities AND Sustainable cities*, 15 minute cities AND walkable cities*, 15 minute cities AND Urban planning*

After searching, all the references were added to the Rayyan software to identify the common discourses surrounding the 15 MC concept. Rayyan was used as the primary tool for screening titles and abstracts. It is a free, web-based platform designed to streamline systematic reviews by enabling multiple reviewers to independently and collaboratively classify articles, resolve conflicts, and manage inclusion criteria. Its ability to detect duplicates and enable blind screening makes it especially effective for maintaining objectivity and reducing bias during the selection phase.

Further, the concept of a 15 MC was decided to be investigated in developing countries and developed countries. Unfortunately, we did not find any comprehensive studies on developing countries, except for a few from India, Indonesia, and by Rungkut [14].

In the second phase, according to the PRISMA guidelines [Figure 2], title and abstract screening were done, and records were excluded based on different criteria, like papers before 2019, that do not answer the research questions, secondary research, and non academic articles were excluded. The screening process was carried out by the first two authors of this article, hereafter referred to as the reviewing authors, in Rayyan software. The reviewing authors assessed each article based on its title and abstract to determine its relevance to the main research questions of this study. Each article was independently categorized by the reviewing authors as either included, possibly included, or excluded. Subsequently, all articles that received unanimous approval from the reviewing authors were considered included. Afterwards, full text screening started, and records were excluded due to the above-mentioned criteria, following which, 33 papers were finalized for the extraction of the data.

Among the 33 included studies, a range of geographic contexts was observed, including cities in Europe, North America, Asia, Oceania, and the Global South. The final selection was not filtered by region but rather emerged from the inclusion/exclusion criteria applied through PRISMA. For instance, no filters were applied based on country or region during database searches or full-text screening. Geographic comparisons were conducted during the synthesis phase. Hence, geographic diversity was analyzed only after study selection to understand how the 15 MC model is being interpreted and applied across different urban typologies. This approach allowed for an organic understanding of regional representation and performance. This approach ensures that the discussion remains grounded in the reviewed literature while offering a comprehensive perspective on the global adaptation of the 15 MC concept [2,13,19,20].

To conduct the thematic analysis, the selected 33 papers were first reviewed and coded by the two authors independently. Common patterns and topics related to the 15 MC, such as accessibility, proximity, walkability, governance, infrastructure, and equity, were noted. These codes were then grouped into broader themes through discussion and agreement between the authors. The final themes were refined by comparing them with concepts frequently discussed in the reviewed studies and existing literature on the 15 MC [1,2,3].

3. Results and Discussion

After a thorough search, a total of 33 papers were selected. This shows that while the 15 MC concept draws on earlier planning strategies, it is still a relatively new idea in urban planning. Most of the studies found were published between 2019 and 2024 (Figure 3). Specifically, 6% of papers were published in 2019 and 2020, 12% in 2021, 28% in 2022, 28% in 2023, and 28% in 2024. After sorting through all papers, a table highlighting key components of 15-minutes cities and global urban performance was created, as shown in

Table A1. Summary of studies by city, country, and development status.

Country	Cities Analyzed	# of Studies	Developed/Developing
Italy	Rome, Milan, Naples, Turin, Cagliari, Pisa, Palermo, Perugia, Trieste	7	Developed
China	Beijing, Shanghai, Chengdu, Guangzhou	5	Developing
USA	Portland, Kapolei	3	Developed
France	Paris	3	Developed
Australia	Melbourne	2	Developed
Spain	Barcelona	2	Developed
India	Mumbai, New Delhi, Bhubaneswar	2	Developing
Indonesia	Surabaya, Surakarta, Jakarta	2	Developing
UK	London	2	Developed
Portugal	Lisbon	2	Developed
Norway	Oslo	1	Developed
Germany	Munich	1	Developed
Poland	Krakow	1	Developed
Greece	Thessaloniki	1	Developed
New Zealand	Hamilton, Auckland	2	Developed
Estonia	Tallinn	1	Developed
Canada	Montréal	2	Developed
Colombia	Bogotá	1	Developing
UAE	Dubai	1	Developing
Nigeria	Lagos	1	Developing

Total countries: 19; Developed countries: 12; Developing countries: 7; Cities analyzed: 35+ (some studies cover multiple cities).

[see Appendix A]. The review of existing literature on the 15 M reveals several thematic clusters. These include sustainability and environmental impact, focusing on eco-friendly urban design, urban planning, and mobility, which aim to improve access and transport, social equity and inclusivity, ensuring all communities benefit from development, and public health and well-being, promoting healthy environments. When looking at the geographic distribution of the papers, we found that studies have been conducted in various cities of different countries around the world, including Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the UAE, the UK, and the USA. These locations reflect a diverse selection of research efforts focused on the 15 MC model [see Figure 4 and Table A1 in the Appendix A].

3.1. Key Components of 15-Minute Cities and Global Urban Performance

The 15-minutes city concept focuses on community-centered, polycentric social development that values proximity, sustainability, and quality of life [16]. However, Moreno’s perspective covers a wider range of attributes, including the principles of human-scale urbanism and the active use of spaces, as exemplified by initiatives in Paris [22]. To identify the key components and over all Global urban performance addressed in the literature (see Appendix A,

Table A2. Key Components of 15-minutes cities and global urban performance. Legend: ✓ = Addressed in the study; ✗ = Not addressed or unclear.

S. No	Ref.	Year	Proximity	Accessibility and Walkability	Density	Diversity	Mixed Use	Adaptability	Flexibility	Human-Scale Urban Design	Connectivity	Digitalization	Inclusive Urban Design
1	[1]	2024	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✗	✓	✓	✓	✓
2	[3]	2024	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓	✓	✗	✓
3	[5]	2023	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✗	✓	✓	✗	✓
4	[9]	2022	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓
5	[14]	2022	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗
6	[17]	2022	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗	✓	✓	✗	✓	✓	✓
7	[18]	2021	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗	✓	✓	✗	✓	✓	✓
8	[20]	2024	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✗	✓	✓	✗	✓
9	[24]	2019	✓	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✓	✗	✓
10	[25]	2021	✗	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✗	✗
11	[26]	2021	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓
12	[31]	2022	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓	✗	✗	✗	✓	✗	✗
13	[32]	2022	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✗	✗	✗
14	[34]	2024	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✗	✗
15	[35]	2023	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗
16	[36]	2023	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✓	✗	✗
17	[37]	2022	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✗	✗
18	[38]	2023	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✗	✗
19	[39]	2024	✓	✗	✗	✗	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✗
20	[40]	2021	✓	✓	✗	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓	✗	✓
21	[41]	2022	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓	✗	✗	✗	✓	✗	✗
22	[43]	2024	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✗	✓	✓	✗	✗
23	[45]	2022	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✗	✗	✗
24	[46]	2023	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗	✓
25	[47]	2023	✓	✗	✗	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓
26	[48]	2023	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓
27	[49]	2023	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✗	✓	✓	✓	✓
28	[33]	2023	✓	✓	✗	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✗	✓
29	[51]	2022	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓
30	[52]	2020	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✗	✓	✗	✗
31	[53]	2024	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓
32	[55]	2024	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓	✗	✓
33	[56]	2024	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✓	✓	✓	✓

), each paper was systematically examined to check whether it discussed or evaluated specific components of the 15 MC models, such as proximity, walkability, human-scale design, or digitalization. A checkmark (✓) was assigned only if the study discussion, case study, or analytical approach was on that component. Where information was vague or missing, the field was marked with a cross (✗). This approach ensures consistency in identifying how each source contributed to the understanding of key 15 MC principles and also ensures consistency in assessing the thematic focus of the reviewed studies. The analysis revealed that 11 core components are frequently cited as central to the concept of the 15-minutes city model [Appendix A, Table A2].

One key feature is proximity, which ensures that all essential services, such as medical, educational, and retail services are reachable within 15-minutes by walking or cycling. This design model promotes mixed-use neighborhoods that provide spaces for work, recreation, and residential living, moving away from centralized city planning toward a more localized neighborhood-based approach [23].

Accessibility and walkability are enhanced through a well-planned street network that connects residents to green spaces, public transport, and commercial areas. Tools like Walk Score measure how walkable neighborhoods can lead to improved health outcomes, such as lower obesity rates and increased physical activity, as seen in cities like Shanghai [24]. In addition to urban form and mobility, the 15 MC model is associated with significant public health benefits. Walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods can promote increased physical activity, thereby reducing the risk of non-communicable diseases such as obesity, hypertension, and diabetes [2,3]. Reduced reliance on motorized transport helps lower air pollution exposure, especially in dense areas, improving respiratory health outcomes [24,25]. The presence of accessible green spaces and social infrastructure supports mental health and well-being by encouraging regular outdoor activity, social interaction, and reduced stress [1,3].

Density plays an important role in allowing residents to meet their everyday needs without relying on motor cars, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled and lowering carbon emissions [19,26].

Moreover, the promotion of diversity within neighborhoods, including both cultural and socioeconomic variety and mixing residential and commercial spaces, is key to creating vibrant communities. Diversity encompasses both land-use variety and socio-economic or demographic heterogeneity (e.g., age, income, gender), which affects inclusivity and community resilience [2].

The mixed-use, refers specifically to the spatial integration of land uses residential, commercial, educational, etc. within a walkable radius, not only create multi-functional urban spaces but also decrease travel distances helping lower pollution levels and improving residents’ overall life satisfaction [2,19].

Adaptability is essential for cities to respond to unexpected changes, and to mitigate the impact of calamities, and redesign the urban system effectively [27]. Adaptability refers to the capacity of urban form to change physically over time (e.g., repurposing spaces).

Flexibility in public spaces is crucial for transforming single use areas into multifunctional spaces, allowing buildings and locations to be utilized throughout the week. Flexibility refers to the institutional or functional ability of a system to respond to shifting needs such as shared use of infrastructure or temporary closures [26,28]. For example, schoolyards in Paris can become parks during school holidays [24].

Human-scale urban design focuses on neighborhood where residents can access their daily necessities within a short distance, promoting walkable and bike-friendly environments [19]. Connectivity through integrated public transport is important for maintaining diverse neighborhoods and ensuring that all modes of mobility walking, cycling, and transit work well together [19].

Digitalization plays a significant role in improving urban management and services, particularly highlighted during COVID-19 pandemic [16,23,29]. This allows cities to develop in a decentralized, polycentric manner that distributes amenities across multiple locations, encouraging sub-centralities that cater to urban populations [27]. Digitalization and inclusive design vary across contexts. While cities like Paris and Shanghai integrate digital tools for mobility and service mapping [2,28], many Global South cities prioritize basic access due to limited infrastructure [13,14].

Ultimately, inclusive urban design should prioritize equitable development, ensuring that all residents, including those in disadvantaged areas, benefit from improvements in urban environments, such as affordable housing and equitable resource allocation, and get benefits in terms of health improvement and resilient cities against disasters and climate change [30]. Universal and inclusive design, ensuring access for all age groups, physical abilities, and income levels, is inconsistently addressed in the reviewed studies. While European cities often incorporate accessibility standards and participatory planning mechanisms, many cities in the Global South lack regulatory frameworks or infrastructure to ensure equitable access for disabled or elderly populations [31].

In summary, Table A2 (see Appendix A) highlights how different urban contexts prioritize different 15 MC components. Cities in high-income countries, for example, European cities such as Paris and Barcelona, frequently emphasize cycling infrastructure, digital tools, and public space redesign [2,32] supported by strong governance and compact urban forms. Meanwhile, cities in the Global South are more likely to focus on proximity to basic services, governance barriers, and informal settlements [14]. Components such as inclusive design and digitalization remain underexplored in developing contexts, suggesting the need for locally relevant adaptations of the 15 MC model.

3.2. Urban Planning Tools and Strategies

This literature indicated several tools, like geospatial analysis, walkability indices, land use evaluation, and transport network studies, to compare city performance globally.

Table 2. Urban planning tools used to measure 15 MC performance.

City	GIS Spatial Analysis	Walkability Index [Walk Score]	Mixed-Use Development Analysis	Transport Network Analysis [Public Transport Accessibility Index]	Urban Morphology [Space Syntax]	Cycling Infrastructure
Paris	High service accessibility mapping [33]	98 [High]	Strong mixed-use zoning	Metro, tram, bus, well-integrated [2]	Compact urban form [2]	Extensive bike lanes, bike-sharing system [2]
Milan	Service accessibility mapping in urban studies [5]	85 [High]	High-density mixed-use zoning [5]	Metro, trams, and buses are well-connected [5]	Compact historical core with expanding modern zones [5]	Strong investments in cycling lanes [5]
Melbourne	Not specifically used in GIS tools	92 [High]	Mixed-use zoning is integrated in new developments [12]	Not discussed	Not discussed	Expanding bike lanes and infrastructure [19]
Lagos	Limited GIS accessibility mapping [13]	50 [Low]	Highly informal settlement areas lack structured mixed-use planning [13]	Public transport lacks integration [13]	High-density, unstructured urban expansion [13]	Very limited cycling infrastructure [13]
Mumbai	Inconsistent service accessibility [14]	58 [Low]	Limited mixed-use planning [14]	High-density rail, poor last-mile connectivity [14]	Unstructured, informal settlements [14]	Weak cycling infrastructure [14]
Portland	Not specifically used in GIS tools	89 [High]	Mixed-use zoning policies implemented [19]	Not discussed	Not discussed	Not discussed
Jakarta	Limited GIS application [21]	65 [Medium]	Some mixed-use developments but lack consistency [21]	Bus rapid transit, weak metro system [21]	High-density urban sprawl [21]	Few dedicated bike lanes [21]
Shanghai	GIS urban mobility analysis [24]	87 [High]	High urban density supports mixed-use zoning [24]	Extensive metro network [24]	Dense urban core [24]	Growing cycling infrastructure, but still car-reliant [24]
London	Used in transport and accessibility analysis [25]	94 [High]	Mixed-use development strategies applied [25]	Well-integrated transit system [25]	Polycentric urban layout [25]	London Cycleways program improving connectivity [25]
Bogotá	GIS-based cycling and transit analysis [31]	75 [Medium]	Strong community-based planning [31]	BRT system is well-developed [31]	Polycentric urban structure [31]	Expanding bike lanes, urban cycling culture [31]
Naples	Limited application [31]	78 [Medium]	Unstructured mixed-use zoning [31]	Moderate public transport efficiency [31]	Fragmented urban morphology [31]	Weak cycling infrastructure [31]
Barcelona	GIS-based analysis for superblocks [32]	90 [High]	Strong mixed-use model [32]	Metro and BRT systems integrated [32]	Compact grid layout [32]	Superblocks prioritize pedestrian and cycling mobility [32]
Oslo	Public transport-oriented GIS mapping	95 [High]	High integration of mixed-use neighborhoods [34]	Strong metro, tram, and bus connectivity [34]	Compact city design [35]	Extensive cycling lanes, investments in bike-sharing [34]
Lisbon	Spatial accessibility mapping applied [35]	88 [High]	Moderate mixed-use zoning [35]	Moderate metro and bus network [35]	Historic core limits transformation [35]	Expanding cycling network but still underdeveloped [35]
Rome	Not specifically used in GIS tools	80 [Medium]	Mixed-use policies improving accessibility [36]	Not discussed	Not discussed	Not discussed
Turin	GIS-based spatial planning tools applied [37]	82 [Medium-High]	Mixed-use zoning improves accessibility [37]	Moderate public transport efficiency [37]	Well-structured central layout [37]	Expanding cycling network [37]
Dubai	GIS used in transport analysis [38]	64 [Medium-Low]	Gated communities hinder mixed-use integration [38]	High reliance on car-based transport [38]	Urban expansion challenges proximity planning [38]	Limited cycling infrastructure, improving policies [38]
Auckland	GIS applied in walkability and proximity studies [39]	70 [Medium-High]	Moderate mixed-use zoning [39]	Public transport efficiency varies by district [39]	Car-dependent suburban areas impact morphology [39]	Cycling infrastructure is expanding, but unevenly distributed [39]
Tallinn	Spatial analysis for 15 MC assessment [40]	80 [Medium-High] [40]	Improving mixed-use urban development [40]	Expanding the bus and tram network [40]	Compact city design [40]	Growing cycling infrastructure, but still developing [40]
Krakow	Used in urban accessibility research [41]	77 [Medium]	Moderate mixed-use zoning [41]	Tram-based public transport [41]	Historic core limits accessibility improvements [41]	Low cycling infrastructure, improving gradually [41]
Thessaloniki	GIS applied in accessibility mapping [42]	72 [Medium]	Mixed-use developments emerging [42]	Bus-dominant public transport [42]	Historic layout limits transformation [42]	Growing cycling network [42]

provides an overview of how different cities apply GIS, walkability indices [walk score, sidewalk connectivity analysis], mixed-use development analysis, transport network analysis [public transport accessibility index], urban morphology [space syntax], and cycling infrastructure index, to measure and improve urban mobility and proximity-based planning [12,24]. While cities like Paris, Oslo, and Barcelona apply a comprehensive mix of these tools, others, particularly in the Global South, show more limited or inconsistent use due to data, infrastructure, or governance constraints.

Table 2 also outlines the urban planning tools used across the reviewed case studies. Classifications such as “high”, “medium”, or “low” walkability are not original calculations by the authors but are extracted directly from the study if provided (e.g., walk score or equivalent index) or inferred based on the study’s qualitative assessment of walkable infrastructure. The tools listed in Table 2 refer to the measurement and evaluation methods used in the reviewed studies; regulatory planning instruments such as zoning or land-use policies are beyond the scope of this review. For a detailed overview of tool usage by study see

Table A3. Detailed tool usage by study.

	Ref.	Year	City	Country	Tool/Assessment Method	Parameters Assessed
1	[1]	2024	Hong Kong	China	GIS, Walk Score, accessibility tools	Proximity, Accessibility, Walkability, Urban Services
2	[3]	2024	Cagliari, Perugia, Pisa, Trieste	Italy	Urban Morphology, GIS	Accessibility, Morphological Features, Walkability
3	[5]	2023	Various Italian Cities	Italy	Next Proximity Index (based on open data)	Proximity, Accessibility, Open Data Analysis
4	[9]	2022	Not specific (urban China)	China	Urban Heat Adaptation Framework	Urban Climate Adaptability
5	[17]	2022	Guangzhou	China	GPS Trajectory Data	Mobility, Traffic Exposure, Individual Movement Patterns
6	[18]	2021	Multiple cities in the US	USA	Longitudinal Mobility Study using Mobile & GIS Data	Pandemic Impact on Movement & Access
7	[20]	2024	Surabaya	Indonesia	Urban morphology, policy review	Proximity, spatial layout
8	[14]	2022	General (India)	India	Geospatial analysis	Micro-mobility, access time
9	[56]	2024	Surakarta	Indonesia	Big Data, GIS	Green space accessibility
10	[24]	2019	Urban China	China	GIS, walkability index	Walkable neighborhoods, inequality
11	[26]	2021	Cagliari	Italy	GIS, reuse potential (Porosity, Crossing, etc.)	Reuse of public buildings
12	[32]	2022	Barcelona	Spain	Pedestrian travel time, GIS	Accessibility and proximity via walk times
13	[35]	2023	Oslo, Lisbon	Norway, Portugal	Case studies, planning analysis	Remote workspaces, mixed-use planning
14	[34]	2024	Oslo	Norway	Accessibility modelling, travel distance	15-minutes city accessibility in Oslo
15	[36]	2023	Rome, London, Paris	Italy, UK, France	Graph theory and spatial network analysis	Comparative network-based accessibility
16	[25]	2021	Naples, London	Italy, UK	Accessibility analysis using GIS	Comparative analysis of neighborhood accessibility
17	[48]	2023	Beijing	China	Post-pandemic urban analysis, spatial mapping	Living circle analysis under an epidemic context
18	[49]	2023	Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei	China	GIS and visual analysis	15-minutes facility distribution
19	[43]	2024	Terni, Matera	Italy	Configurational urban analysis	Urban quality through a 15-minutes city lens
20	[45]	2022	Palermo	Italy	Urban policy and spatial design analysis	Palermo’s structure in the 15-minutes context
21	[46]	2023	Sicily	Italy	Case study analysis (COVID-19 period)	COVID-19 effects on proximity and service access
22	[47]	2023	Montréal	Canada	Behavioral surveys, urban lifestyle analysis	Behavioral perspective on 15/30-minutes city lifestyles
23	[37]	2022	Turin	Italy	Service accessibility measurement	Access to services in a 15-minutes city framework
24	[39]	2024	Auckland	New Zealand	GIS-based spatial analysis Custom indexes: Porosity, Crossing, Attractiveness	Spatial connectivity, Accessibility of services, Urban morphology and walkability
25	[33]	2023	Montréal	Canada	Accessibility metrics by travel purpose Mode-based spatial analysis	Travel time to key services, Mode-based access differences (e.g., walk, cycle, transit), Functional diversity and proximity,
26	[38]	2023	Dubai	UAE	GIS-based service area mapping Walkability analysis	Walking distance to services, Spatial distribution of services, Service coverage efficiency
27	[51]	2022	Paris, Barcelona, Milan	France, Spain, Italy	Comparative urban spatial analysis, Morphological and functional indicators	Proximity of daily service, Urban density, and land-use mix Human-scale design and public space integration
28	[52]	2020	Lombardy	Italy	Chrono-urbanism (time-based spatial assessment), Station catchment area analysis	Access to urban functions via railway stations, Temporal proximity of daily needs, Transport-oriented spatial planning
29	[41]	2022	Krakow	Poland	GIS-based spatial analysis	Proximity to services, walking coverage, and service distribution
30	[31]	2022	Naples	Italy	GIS, network analysis	Accessibility index, spatial equity, 15-minutes walking coverage
31	[40]	2021	Bogotá	Colombia	Mobility & behavior surveys, temporal analysis	Mobility change, activity patterns, and access to daily needs
32	[55]	2024	Tallinn	Estonia	Two-level GIS spatial analysis	Urban + expansion area service proximity, suitability mapping
33	[53]	2024	Hamilton	New Zealand	GIS, catchment mapping, mobility analysis	Accessibility to services, multimodal coverage, and equity

in the Appendix A.

3.3. Comparative Analysis of 15 MC Implementation Across Global Regions

This section outlines how selected cities have adopted and implemented the 15 MC model, highlighting key strategies and urban planning tools used to promote proximity-based living. While it does not serve as a direct performance evaluation, this comparative discussion provides valuable insights into the challenges and successes observed in various urban contexts.

3.3.1. Europe (Paris, Barcelona, Oslo, Lisbon, Rome, Milan, etc.)

Cities like Paris have successfully adopted 15 MC principles by applying the superblock concept, increasing cycling lanes, and pedestrianized zones. They addressed traffic congestion and air pollution with the outcome of a 60% increase in cycling, and reduced car use [2]. Similarly, Barcelona and Melbourne have implemented various steps to bring essential services closer to residents, which enhances both urban livability and sustainability. Barcelona implemented the superblock model, prioritization of pedestrian spaces, expansion of green areas, which improved air quality, 25% reduction in car traffic [32,35]. Barcelona has also performed well, particularly with its superblock initiative that limits car traffic in certain areas. This improves pedestrian access and brings the proximity of services. However, Ferrer-Ortiz et al. point out that while the 15 MC concept supports public health and sustainability goals, there is still a need for infrastructural investment in poorer areas to achieve success [32].

However, in cities such as Paris and Barcelona, the application of 15 MC principles has not been uniform across all neighborhoods. In Paris, pilot initiatives such as the “school streets” program and localized service mapping have focused heavily on central arrondissements, while peripheral areas remain less integrated [2]. Similarly, Barcelona’s superblocks model has been most actively implemented in select inner-city districts like Eixample, where grid street patterns and political consensus have supported pedestrianization and cycling infrastructure [32].

A study comparing Lisbon and Oslo examined the impact of this concept on urban life. In Lisbon, neighborhoods with new working spaces resulted in more vibrant communities allowing residents to meet their daily needs nearby, which helped reduce traffic and improve air quality. In contrast, while Oslo has strong public transport access, the spatial distribution of new working spaces limits the effectiveness of the 15 MC model in creating mixed-use areas. They used strategies like a car-free city center, investment in e-mobility, and climate-resilient urban planning that help in reducing CO₂ emission [34]. Furthermore, Oslo has made significant progress, particularly through investments in cycling infrastructure and pedestrian-friendly spaces, making it as a strong performer in sustainability [34].

Murgante, Valluzzi, and Annunziata compared four Italian cities, Cagliari, Perugia, Pisa, and Trieste, and noted different levels of adaptation to the 15 MC model [43]. Cagliari and Pisa performed relatively better due to their compact layouts, while Perugia and Trieste faced challenges from their topography and historic urban design, making it difficult to create accessible neighborhoods [3]. Staricco [37] studied dense urban areas like Turin and suggested that the 15-minutes accessibility threshold may not be universally suitable, since many people already have services within shorter travel time frames. This indicates that aiming for a uniform 15-minutes accessibility might overlook the unique existing conditions in different areas. Like many other countries, Italy struggles with transforming historic city centers to meet modern needs while preserving their cultural heritage. Milan has adopted a hybrid approach to the 15 MC, integrating walkable areas with existing public transport, which helps them to maintain accessibility without major disruption [44].

A study by Barbieri, D’Autilia, Marrone, and Montella compared the success of the 15 MC concept in Rome, London, and Paris [36]. Paris leads in this regard, by transforming neighborhoods into walkable areas close to services, gaining global recognition for its urban innovations. London has improved walkability and public transport but faces challenges due to its spreadout layout and uneven service distribution. In Rome, the historic layout and urban sprawl make it difficult to achieve proximity to essential services, and the car-dependent culture further slows progress. Gaglione, Zucaro, and Cottrill note that London aligns well with the 15 MC concept, due to its well-developed public transport network and better distributed services [25].

In Palermo, the implementation of the 15 MC has had both successes and challenges. The city has improved public spaces and green areas for better walkability and access to services; however, it faces significant infrastructural and socio-economic barriers, such as uneven service distribution, that make the progress difficult [45]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Sicilian urban planners quickly adapted to the changing needs of residents. The 15 MC model became a guiding tool to enhance local accessibility, reduce traffic, and promote public health measures through more self-sufficient neighborhoods [46].

3.3.2. North America and Oceania (Portland, Montréal, Auckland, Hamilton)

Portland has also used the 15 MC approach by creating compact, walkable neighborhoods where essential services are within a short distance. The focus is on enhancing walkability, improving green spaces, and reducing the need for cars. These examples show that cities with well-developed transportation infrastructure, supportive policies, and public engagement can achieve the desired outcomes, such as reduced environmental impacts, improved quality of life, and stronger community connections [19].

Birkenfeld et al. [47] explored both the 15-minutes and 30-minutes city concepts, analyzing how proximity to services affects local lifestyles. In Montréal (Global North), the city center experiences shorter commutes and better access to recreational services, while suburban areas face difficulties to adopt a local lifestyle, making the 30 min city concept more suitable there.

3.3.3. Asia-Pacific Region (Beijing, Shanghai, Chengdu, Jakarta, Surabaya, Melbourne, Auckland etc.)

In Beijing the 15 MC concept proved useful during the COVID-19 pandemic by ensuring residents have easy access to essential services. However, the size and density of Beijing create challenges in service distribution, especially in peripheral areas, while the model has potential to enhance urban resilience [48]. In urban China, especially in cities like Shanghai and Chengdu, the 15 MC model can promote healthier communities by encouraging walkability and reducing reliance on cars. However, Weng et al. identified significant social inequalities, meaning wealthier neighborhoods tend to have better access to health, education, and retail services [24]. Yang studied the spatial configuration of amenities in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei and found that while core areas meet 15 MC criteria, peripheral regions lack proper infrastructure and service proximity [49].

JIang et al. [39] used geographic information systems [GIS] to map access to essential services within a 15-minutes walk or bike ride in Auckland, finding that while central areas are well suited for the 15 MC, car-dependent suburban districts face challenges due to inadequate infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists. It is observed that urban planning tools play a key role in assessing and implementing the 15 MC model.

3.4. Challenges in Dense and Resource-Constrained Settings

Although the 15 MC provides a seductive model for sustainable urbanism, its real-world implementation is subject to several challenges that differ across contexts worldwide. Cities in the Global South often struggle with contextual barriers that differ significantly from those in wealthier regions. Urban informality, limited access to reliable public transport, fragmented planning institutions, and inadequate pedestrian infrastructure complicate the direct application of the 15 MC model. For example, similarly fast-growing cities like Guangzhou struggle with social inequalities and uneven infrastructure development, hampering equal service distribution [31,50]. Cities in developing countries like Mumbai and Jakarta struggle with inadequate infrastructure and informal settlements, requiring modified strategies such as micro-mobility solutions and community-led initiatives [13,20]. Jakarta and Surabaya exhibit traffic congestion and weak metro systems, while in cities like Bogotá and Nairobi, safety and inequality undermine walkability despite policy interest in compact development [31]. For developing nations, with newer ideas, such as the 10 min city, Mishra, Bhattacharya, Chaturvedi, and Singh [20] demonstrate efforts to bring together micro-mobility and urban services, yet inequalities continue, especially in peri-urban and poor areas in India. As in Surakarta and Surabaya, accessibility inequalities for green space and basic services continue to be an urgent hindrance [31].

High-scoring walkability is provided in ungated neighborhoods in cities like Dubai [48], while zoning policies superimposed on the area appear to demote mixed-use development, and gated communities tend to foster car dependency and social inequality.

In African and Latin American cities where urban spread and unequal access to services are predominant, even pro-initiatives like Bogotá’s cycle infrastructure or Lagos’s neighborhood business districts must accompany concurrent investments in equity, security, and infrastructure for the complete fulfillment of the 15 MC model [40].

In contrast, one of the key challenges in the Global North is an overconcentration on work journeys, which makes it difficult to implement, especially in North America where shopping and leisure journeys might be more viable entry points [33].

Accessibility would also be hindered further by serious anomalies of existing infrastructure such as missing sidewalks and properly marked crosswalks. A recurring global issue is the risk of gentrification. In Western cities like Paris, Barcelona, and Milan, urban renewal plans have occasionally relocated lower-income groups, while interventions such as Barcelona’s inclusion of social housing attempt to mitigate it [51]. In the Global South, by contrast, basic service delivery to underserved formal and informal settlements takes priority in order to secure local community networks. Another significant issue is the restricted ability to adapt to suburban and rural environments. For instance, in Auckland and most suburban areas globally, car dependence and fragmented services are problematic to localization [39,52]. Spatial obstacles, with no infrastructure to support walking or cycling, call for specific responses for non-urban environments [46].

Historical cities like Krakow and Thessaloniki face additional challenges: old zoning laws, stakeholder resistance, and traffic congestion complicate efforts to retrofit urban layouts for equitable access [41,42]. The study of Wang et al. [53] highlights Hamilton’s challenges in becoming a 15 MC, including car dependency, urban sprawl, and uneven access to amenities. It stresses the need for better public transport and locally tailored planning to support sustainable development. Marchigiani and Bonfantini [54] studied this concept in Trieste and Milan and found that while the 15 MC concept promotes sustainability and local accessibility, it often oversimplifies complex urban realities, risking exclusion of certain groups and overlooking diverse mobility needs. It emphasizes that successful neighborhood planning must balance proximity goals with social inclusivity and real urban dynamics.

While active mobility is a key pillar of the 15 MC model, the promotion of cycling infrastructure must account for local realities. Cities such as Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and Paris benefit from long-established cycling cultures, supportive policy environments, and public acceptance, which have led to large-scale investments in bike lanes and bike-sharing systems [2,32,34]. In contrast, many cities in Asia, Africa, and Latin America face persistent barriers to cycling adoption—including lack of infrastructure, poor road safety, social stigma, and environmental challenges such as extreme heat or humidity. This is evident in cities like Jakarta, Mumbai, and Lagos, where cycling infrastructure is minimal or underdeveloped [13,14]. In such contexts, cycling interventions must be introduced through phased, locally adapted strategies that prioritize safety, affordability, and cultural integration [24,31,38].

Table 3. Comparison of 15 MC implementation in developed vs. developing countries.

Aspect	Developed Countries [e.g., Paris, Melbourne, Portland, Oslo]	Developing Countries [e.g., Mumbai, Jakarta, Lagos, Surabaya]
Urban Infrastructure	Well-planned, existing pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, extensive cycling infrastructure [2,37]	Unplanned urban sprawl, weak cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, reliance on cars [19,20]
Governance and Policy	Strong zoning laws, integrated public transport, and sustainability-focused urban planning [36]	Weak enforcement of zoning laws, informal settlements, and limited funding for infrastructure [13,21]
Public Transportation	High public transit efficiency, multimodal connectivity, and investments in green transport [18]	Underdeveloped or overcrowded public transport, informal modes [rickshaws, minibuses] dominate [46]
Proximity and Accessibility	Most services within a 15-minutes walking or cycling distance, high accessibility score [24]	Services may require 20–30 min due to congestion, lack of mixed-use zoning [13,47]
Socio-Economic Barriers	Gentrification risks, rising housing costs near accessible hubs [6]	High economic inequality, informal housing, poor service distribution [38]
Adaptation Strategies	Expansion of pedestrian zones, cycling lanes, and smart mobility [15]	Incremental improvements to community-led projects, micro-mobility solutions [21,53]

below compares key differences between developed and developing country contexts. Successful implementation in any setting requires context-sensitive policies, balancing proximity, infrastructure, and socio-economic realities. As seen in Table 3, developed cities such as Paris, Melbourne, and Portland have successfully implemented the 15 MC principles by expanding pedestrian zones, improving cycling infrastructure, and decentralizing services. This highlights the need for context-specific urban planning approaches adapted to the challenges of each region.

While the 15 MC concept is widely recognized for its sustainability and livability benefits, its real-world implementation faces significant challenges. These challenges differ based on urban density, governance structures, socio-economic disparities, and infrastructure limitations. Recent debates in urban studies suggest that while high-density cities have inherent advantages in achieving walkability, they also face risks of gentrification, infrastructure saturation, and governance complexities [2,6]. The key challenges associated with implementing the 15 MC model, such as gentrification, infrastructural constraints, car dependency, rigid zoning laws, and digital divides, are summarized in

Table 4. Summary of implementation challenges and corresponding recommendations, aligned with key 15-minutes city components and contextual conditions outlined in Table 3.

Challenge	Scientific Debate & Challenges	Key Studies, Perspectives, and Solutions
Gentrification & Socioeconomic Exclusion	Critics argue that the 15 MC model can lead to gentrification, pricing out low-income residents from well-connected areas. While proximity increases livability, it can also exacerbate socio-economic divides, as seen in Paris and Barcelona. There is an ongoing debate on whether rent control or subsidized housing can mitigate displacement risks.	Ref. [6]—The 15 MC creates “exclusive proximity” where only high-income residents benefit from walkability. [32] Superblock initiatives in Barcelona incorporate social housing policies to counteract displacement.
Infrastructure Constraints in Developing Cities	Many developing cities lack the infrastructure to implement the 15 MC model due to poor road networks, informal settlements, and a lack of planning frameworks. The scientific debate centers on whether this model can be adapted to informal urban areas or if a 20- or 30-min model is more realistic.	[20] A “10 min city” model was tested in India, showing that shorter proximity models can be successful in dense areas. [21] Studied Surabaya’s urban expansion, showing how micro-infrastructure projects help integrate informal areas.
Car Dependency & Urban Sprawl	Cities with urban sprawl and low-density suburbs struggle with the 15 MC model due to long travel distances. There is a scientific divide on whether retrofitting suburbs for walkability is feasible or if transport-oriented solutions are a better alternative.	[34] Found that in Oslo, transit-oriented developments helped suburban areas meet 15-minutes criteria. [46] Argued that in Auckland, a hybrid 30-min city model is more practical due to car dependency.
Land-Use & Zoning Barriers	Rigid zoning laws in some cities prevent mixed-use developments, making the 15 MC hard to implement. Scientific debate focuses on whether existing zones should be reformed or if new urban developments should be built instead.	[12] Found that in Athens, mixed-use zoning regulations improved urban mobility. [18] Suggest “soft zoning” policies that encourage gradual transitions to mixed-use neighborhoods.
Digital Divide & Smart Mobility	The digital divide makes it harder for some residents [especially elderly and low-income populations] to access smart mobility services. - Some researchers argue that digital tools enhance accessibility, while others warn that they may increase exclusion.	[8] Advocated for a “hybrid mobility” approach that integrates digital tools with traditional urban planning.

. These challenges, debated across the literature, highlight the need for inclusive, context-sensitive planning approaches that can adapt the model to both high-density and low-resource urban environments. The solutions are drawn from the common implementation challenges identified in Section 3.3 and are linked to key 15 MC components (e.g., walkability, flexibility, inclusivity) and contextual categories presented in Table 3.

It is noted that the majority of reviewed studies evaluate the 15 MC model from a macro-scale, city-wide perspective. However, this approach may overlook localized variations in implementation and lived experience. Assessing the 15 MC concept at the neighborhood level through participatory mapping, observational studies, or resident surveys could offer more detailed understandings about how proximity, accessibility, and inclusivity are experienced in daily life. Such micro-level methodologies, when aggregated, may produce a more grounded and differentiated understanding of the model’s effectiveness.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

This paper investigates the implementation of the 15 MC model by analyzing its key components, challenges, and opportunities across diverse urban settings, while providing practical recommendations for its effective use.

This review builds on recent literature but offers a distinct contribution in three ways. First, it applies to a five-part comparative framework that synthesizes not just implementation challenges, but also the planning tools and component coverage across global case studies. Second, it gives attention to the Global South, an aspect underrepresented in existing 15 MC reviews. Third, it provides context-sensitive recommendations grounded in real-world planning constraints, making it applicable across both well-resourced and resource constrained urban settings.

The methodology used in this study aimed to assess how the 15 MC model is being used around the globe through a systematic review of relevant literature. While this approach provided comprehensive insights, several limitations and issues were encountered during the research process.

Limiting the review to studies published between 2019 and 2024 may have excluded earlier research that contributed to the conceptual evolution of the 15 MC. Additionally, the exclusion of non-English language publications likely reduced the diversity of perspectives, particularly from regions where local planning practices are underrepresented in English-language literature. Papers included varied significantly, ranging from empirical studies to theoretical discussions and policy analyses. This diversity could affect the generalizability of the conclusions drawn from the review. Furthermore, the review process for paper selection could depend on the reviewers’ subjective interpretations of relevance. Last but not least, the study aimed to include perspectives from both developing and developed countries; however, we faced challenges in finding comprehensive studies from developing nations. As noted, few papers were found that addressed the application of the 15 MC model in countries such as India and Indonesia. Furthermore, another key limitation of current research is the uneven attention to different 15 MC components, particularly in developing cities. As shown in Table A2 (see Appendix A), themes such as digitalization, urban flexibility, and inclusive design are rarely addressed in Global South contexts, largely due to data scarcity, informal urban structures, and planning fragmentation.

This lack of information limits the study’s ability to make a comprehensive comparison and also creates a biased perspective, since developing countries often face different challenges, such as poor infrastructure, high inequality, and informal settlements, that aren’t frequently addressed in existing research. As a result, our findings may not be relevant to all global contexts. Future research should explore practical solutions for cities in the Global South, where informal settlements and limited infrastructure pose unique challenges. Additionally, further work is needed to assess how new trends such as how Artificial Intelligence in transportation planning and smart city technologies can improve the use of the 15 MC in diverse urban settings. Future research must also explore the underrepresented components using both quantitative methods (e.g., walkability scores, spatial equity analysis, GIS mapping) and qualitative approaches (e.g., community-based assessments, interviews with planners in informal settlements). Longitudinal studies and pilot interventions in dense, resource-constrained neighborhoods would also help clarify how adaptable the 15 MC framework is in diverse global settings.

Despite these challenges, this methodology gave us a range of perspectives on the 15 MC concept, helping us understand that it can be implemented across diverse urban contexts. Future research could overcome these limitations by expanding search criteria, including studies in other languages, and focusing specifically on underrepresented regions. Additionally, longitudinal studies examining the ongoing impacts of the 15 MC model would provide a better understanding of its adaptability and effectiveness.

The analysis revealed that while the 15 MC idea is becoming more popular worldwide, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic, its effective implementation depends on diverse urban contexts and conditions. The findings indicate that cities in developed countries, like Paris, Melbourne, and Portland, have successfully embraced the principles of the 15 MC model by focusing on mixed-use development, improved public transport, and walkable infrastructure. These cities are effective in creating accessible neighborhoods that reduce the need for car travel, thereby contributing to sustainable living and a better quality of life. Unlike many countries where capital cities dominate innovation in urban policy, Italy presents a diverse set of cases from Milan, Turin, and Naples, all of which are large regional cities rather than the national capital. These examples highlight how subnational urban centers are engaging with 15 MC principles through regional planning policies, smart mobility projects, and investments in local services. Their experiences may provide more transferable lessons for similarly sized cities in other regions.

However, cities like Rome and Beijing face challenges, such as urban sprawl and social inequalities, that make it harder to create areas that are easy to walk around. While cities like Oslo and Lisbon have seen positive results from improved service proximity, there are still problems in their outskirts where people depend on cars, as well as older city layouts, that can worsen urban inequalities and increase the risk of gentrification.

On the other hand, many developing countries face serious challenges in implementing the 15 MC model, including informal settlements, poor infrastructure, and socio-economic disparities. Limited financial resources and cultural preferences for cars make these problems even worse. Because of these challenges, cities like Mumbai, Jakarta, and others need to adapt the model for their context-sensitive situations, often leading to different approaches, like micro-mobility solutions and community-led projects to address local issues. In the Global South, informal settlements take diverse forms from dense, self-built urban cores (e.g., Kibera in Nairobi or Dharavi in Mumbai) to peri-urban sprawl lacking formal infrastructure or land rights. These environments present distinct morphological characteristics such as irregular plot sizes, unplanned street networks, and limited access to public amenities, making standardized 15 MC implementation difficult [13,14]. However, emerging strategies such as micro-mobility networks (e.g., informal bike sharing, e-rickshaws), mobile service hubs, and community-led spatial interventions offer scalable and context-sensitive alternatives [24,31]. For example, Bogotá’s Ciclovía program and Nairobi’s participatory slum upgrading initiatives demonstrate how localized mobility and service planning can lay groundwork for proximity-based living even without formal infrastructure. Future research should explore these bottom-up models as adaptive pathways to apply 15 MC principles in informally urbanized settings.

Applying the success of the 15 MC concept from well-planned, densely populated areas to less organized ones may miss contextual differences that affect its feasibility. In the context of the Global South, allowing a walking or cycling time of 20 or even 30 min can make the idea more practical. This change could help more residents access services and encourage a more inclusive approach to city planning. Another key factor is the lack of data on how urban areas are spreading in suburban and rural locations.

Important components such as proximity, mixed-use development, accessibility, and adaptability turned out to be critical in determining the success of the 15 MC model. Furthermore, challenges like gentrification, urban sprawl, and strict zoning laws were identified as vital issues in both types of cities, highlighting the need for nuanced governance and policy frameworks.

The study emphasized the need to prioritize equitable development so that all residents, especially those in marginalized communities, can benefit from improvements in urban life. To adapt the 15 MC model in densely populated areas of the Global South, several recommendations can help: first, it is important to actively involve local communities, especially marginalized groups, who often get excluded from planning and decision-making. Secondly, starting pilot projects in selected neighborhoods can help to assess if the idea is feasible and see if it can be expanded. Third, promoting mixed-use development, where residential, commercial, and recreational spaces and parks are all close to each other, can reduce long commutes and improve public transport options. Additionally, building safe spaces for walking and biking, such as sidewalks, bike lanes, and green spaces with better lighting and community input, can motivate residents to walk or bike more, which can also help reduce crime. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the 15 MC idea is not a one-size-fits-all solution; it should be adjusted to fit the specific social, cultural, and economic conditions of each area. Education is key for helping people change their habits, which is necessary for the success of the 15 MC concept. Successfully tackling these challenges requires teamwork in urban planning, supportive policies, and a focus on equity and inclusion. By learning from cities that have successfully adopted the 15 MC model, urban planners can gain a better understanding of its practical application and aim to create more livable and sustainable urban environments. Overall, the 15 MC idea is not merely an aspirational vision but a realistic and achievable vision for the future of urban living. Unlike previous reviews that primarily focus on metrics or classification, this study offers a broader comparative lens and emphasizes adaptation challenges in underserved urban contexts, helping bridge global frameworks with local implementation needs.

In summary, this review met its five stated objectives by (1) identifying the core components of the 15 MC (15 MC) model through synthesis of key principles such as proximity, walkability, and inclusivity; (2) analyzing the planning tools—like GIS, walkability indices, and zoning frameworks—used to assess and implement 15 MC principles; (3) comparing urban performance across a range of global cities, highlighting varied levels of readiness and application; (4) examining challenges in dense and resource-constrained settings, including informal development, infrastructure gaps, and governance issues; and (5) proposing context-sensitive, evidence-based recommendations to support equitable implementation of the 15 MC model, particularly in the Global South.