Sustainable Urban Mobility Transitions—From Policy Uncertainty to the CalmMobility Paradigm

Highlights

What are the main findings?

• Sustainable mobility approaches are often normatively sound and well-justified, yet in practice they tend to be implemented too quickly, in fragmented or chaotic ways, lacking reflection and citizen participation.
• In response to sustainable mobility approaches to systemic weaknesses, the paper develops CalmMobility, a unifying concept that integrates existing tools while promoting comprehensiveness, pacing–sequencing–inclusion, and Future-Readiness, ensuring socially grounded and resilient mobility transitions.

What is the implication of the main finding?

• The findings imply that without sequencing and social embedding, smart city mobility policies risk reinforcing fragmentation and inequality.
• CalmMobility offers a paradigm for resilient, citizen-centered, and innovation-ready mobility transitions, bridging technology with governance and society.

Abstract

Continuous technological, ecological, and digital transformations reshape urban mobility systems. While sustainable mobility has become a dominant keyword, there are many different approaches and policies to help achieve lasting and properly functioning change. This study applies a comprehensive qualitative policy analysis to influential and leading sustainable mobility approaches (i.a. Mobility Justice, Avoid–Shift–Improve, spatial models like the 15-Minute City and Superblocks, governance frameworks such as SUMPs, and tools ranging from economic incentives to service architectures like MaaS and others). Each was assessed across structural barriers, psychological resistance, governance constraints, and affective dimensions. The results show that, although these approaches provide clear normative direction, measurable impacts, and scalable applicability, their implementation is often undermined by fragmentation, Policy Layering, limited intermodality, weak Future-Readiness, and insufficient participatory engagement. Particularly, the lack of sequencing and pacing mechanisms leads to policy silos and societal resistance. The analysis highlights that the main challenge is not the absence of solutions but the absence of a unifying paradigm. To address this gap, the paper introduces CalmMobility, a conceptual framework that integrates existing strengths while emphasizing comprehensiveness, pacing–sequencing–inclusion, and Future-Readiness. CalmMobility offers adaptive and co-created pathways for mobility transitions, grounded in education, open innovation, and a calm, deliberate approach. Rather than being driven by hasty or disruptive change, it seeks to align technological and spatial innovations with societal expectations, building trust, legitimacy, and long-term resilience of sustainable mobility.

1. Introduction

Continuous technological development and the related ecological and digital transformation are phenomena that have a strong impact on the modern world and a very large number of stakeholders. This has profound implications for the development of urban centers, especially the cities that have grown so rapidly in recent years. With the acceleration of global urbanization, which is projected to reach 68% of the world’s population by 2050 [1], cities are becoming not only demographic centers but also key arenas for economic, environmental, and technological transformation. The most dynamically developing cities are increasingly turning to the smart city paradigm, leveraging digital technologies to optimize energy consumption, mobility systems, governance, and public services. UN-Habitat notes that demand for smart city systems and solutions is growing rapidly, with an estimated market value of around USD 517 billion and annual growth close to 25% in recent years [2]. This exponential growth has profound implications for all economic sectors, but most significantly for urban transportation and mobility—fundamental functions that enable the fulfillment of basic human needs, upon which all other urban activities depend.

Contemporary urban mobility goes beyond the traditional concept of moving between geographical points. It now encompasses access to services, economic and social inclusion, and environmental responsibility. This broadened scope points to the need to integrate social, environmental, and economic aspects—the core components of sustainability. The concept of sustainability is emphasized and addressed in various ways. As Sheller and Urry argue, mobility should be viewed as a socio-technical system in which infrastructure, behavior, and governance intersect [3]. Achieving sustainability in this area is a vast and complex task. Consequently, numerous policies and recommendations exist to reduce emissions [4], reclaim public spaces [5], promote multimodality [6], limit individual motorization and parking [7,8], among many others [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131]. However, urban mobility policy is rarely neutral or uncontested. It often involves negotiating complex tensions, such as those between individual freedoms and collective well-being. What is more, these policies are frequently perceived not only as “physical” or “material” constraints, but also as related to psychological and emotional needs of urban residents [9,12,13]. They may clash with people’s deep-rooted habits, perceived autonomy, and sense of spatial identity. Such top-down interventions often fail to consider everyday mobility routines, emotional attachments to place, and the psychological importance of flexibility and spontaneity in how individuals navigate the city [14,15,16]. According to statistics, passenger cars remain by far the dominant mode of transport in the EU, accounting for around for 70.6% of total passenger-kilometers across the EU in 2022, while buses, coaches, or trolleybuses made up only about 7.2% [131].

Moreover, the proliferation of overlapping concepts and fragmented initiatives, often introduced without a coherent strategic framework, contributes to a sense of confusion and policy fatigue among both practitioners and the public [15]. Instead of delivering tangible, system-wide improvements to urban mobility, these scattered efforts may lead to disjointed implementation, inconsistent outcomes, and a growing public perception that mobility is being progressively restricted rather than improved. This perception is reinforced by market dynamics. According to The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) Report—Vehicles on European Roads 2025, there were 249 million cars on EU roads in 2023, a 1.4% increase from the previous year. What is more, new registrations remain dominated by internal combustion engine vehicles, with petrol and diesel together still representing nearly 38% of the market in 2025, while battery-electric vehicles reached only 15.6% [132].

As seen in statistics, the overall condition of urban transport systems may not significantly improve. What dominates public discourse instead is a recurring pattern of proposing new bans and limitations, rather than presenting integrative, long-term solutions that reflect both environmental objectives and human-centric mobility needs.

This phenomenon is further amplified by the increasing push toward smart city agendas, which often emphasize technological innovation, digitalization, and automation [17] over inclusive planning and social cohesion [4]. While smart city frameworks promise efficiency and responsiveness, when deployed without sufficient integration and engagement, they may result in superficial solutions that fail to address deeper structural or behavioral challenges [18]. The accelerated implementation of sensor networks, data platforms, and automated systems may appear modern and forward-thinking, yet without proper integration into existing mobility ecosystems and sufficient public engagement, they risk becoming fragmented, inequitable, or even alienating. In effect, urban innovation becomes less about long-term transformation and more about quick wins and visible outputs—at the expense of careful reflection, participatory processes, and lived urban experience. This aspect is visible in multiple studies on smart urbanism. Flynn argues that smart city initiatives routinely reinforce social and spatial inequalities, as technocratic designs and profit-driven logics often marginalize vulnerable groups and concentrate decision-making power in private hands [19]. Similarly, Sengupta et al. highlight how government-supported smart city projects tend to benefit elites and platform providers, while failing to achieve inclusive or sustainable results [20]. McCord and Becker’s case study of the Sidewalk Toronto project further reveal that technological solutions often marginalize local perspectives and reduce transformative potential due to the limited inclusion of residents in planning and governance processes [21]. Park and Chung likewise identify the “dark sides” of smart city development, including weakened democratic agency, reduced public trust, and threats to privacy and transparency when initiatives are introduced without sufficient societal dialogue [22]. In this context, a natural question arises as to how to design and implement sustainable mobility policies to shape public acceptance and long-term effectiveness?

The aim of this paper was to analyze current sustainable mobility policies, mapping their strengths and barriers across structural, psychological, and governance dimensions, that, instead of fostering adaptive mobility, could lead to a deepening mobility crisis. In particular, this study seeks to answer the following research questions:

• Q1: What structural, psychological, and governance-related barriers emerge across current sustainable mobility policies?
• Q2: How do various mobility policies differ in terms of implementation logic, behavioral impact, and perceived legitimacy?
• Q3: How can a new conceptual framework support a more inclusive, adaptive, and psychologically sustainable mobility transition?
• Q4: How do the pace and sequencing of mobility policies shape their perceived legitimacy and long-term effectiveness?

What is more, the paper presents the author’s own innovative concept of CalmMobility created based on the undertaken analysis. CalmMobility is an idea that combines contemporary mobility challenges with the need for adaptive, strategic management focused on the end user as the real recipient of various mobility innovations. The concept was created to unite, not divide, and to point the way to collaboration between stakeholders in line with the principle of open innovation.

This paper is conceptual in nature. It is divided into seven sections. Section 1 addresses the introduction. Section 2 was dedicated to the sustainable mobility concept and defines its main paradigms. Section 3 presents the research methodology. Section 4 presents the results that are discussed in Section 5. The most important part of the article is Section 6, which is dedicated to the presentation of the new concept of CalmMobility. Section 7 is dedicated to presenting the conclusions with future research.

2. Sustainable Mobility and Its Discontents

Sustainable mobility is at the heart of urban planning and climate management [23]. Yet, its current dominance is not the result of a single, unified vision. Instead, it has emerged from many policy agendas, academic paradigms, and shifting societal expectations. To understand the controversy, polarization, and implementation barriers that characterize many contemporary mobility reforms, it is first necessary to trace how sustainable mobility was constructed and expanded. This section therefore outlines the theoretical underpinnings of sustainable mobility, its relationship to concepts of urban justice and mobility governance, and the main implementation logics present in today’s urban policy landscape.

2.1. From Green Transport to Mobility Governance

The origins of sustainable mobility can be traced to the late 1980s, when environmental concerns began to gain prominence and transform transport policy. The intellectual roots of sustainability itself can be traced to the Brundtland Report from 1989 [24], which first codified the triad of environmental protection, social equity, and economic development. The 1992 Green Paper on the impact of Transport on the Environment—A Community strategy for “sustainable mobility” signaled the first institutional attempt to challenge the dominance of motorization and promote a shift towards cleaner and more efficient forms of transport [25]. At that time, sustainability was understood primarily in environmental terms as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality, and reducing urban congestion.

The beginning of the 21st century brought a conceptual shift. Scholars such as Sheller and Urry redefined mobility as a socio-technical whole (systems), shaped not only by infrastructure and policies but also by social norms, identities, and lived experiences [3]. From this perspective, mobility was no longer simply about the movement of people and goods understood as pure efficiency. This approach was expanded to the broader scope. It was about access to opportunities, social integration, and the reproduction of everyday life. This shift was reflected in the European Union’s policy architecture. The 2001 White Paper explicitly addressed the need to improve the quality of life in cities and promote sustainable modes of transport through integrated strategies by linking transport to urban life, inclusion, and public health [26]. The institutionalization of this new paradigm gained momentum with the launch of initiatives such as the following:

• CIVITAS—the flagship programs helping the European Commission achieve its ambitious mobility and transport goals, and in turn those in the European Green Deal [27].
• Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs)—strategic plans designed to satisfy the mobility needs of people and businesses in cities and their surroundings for a better quality of life [28].

These plans introduced a more holistic, participatory, and long-term approach to mobility management, linking transportation with land use, health, and citizen engagement [29].

2.2. Expanding the Meaning of Sustainable Mobility

Over time sustainable mobility has evolved into a multi-dimensional level. The concept has become a “container” for an ever-expanding set of diverse goals, including the following [24]:

• Environmental protection;
• Social equity;
• Technological innovation;
• Economic resilience;
• Urban quality of life.

Yet, these dimensions are not always aligned: technological innovation, for instance, may advance efficiency while simultaneously raising concerns about surveillance, equity, or ecological rebound effects.

Related paradigms such as Mobility Justice argue that mobility systems should distribute both opportunities and burdens fairly, recognizing that mobility is a social right [3,29]. Meanwhile, smart cities based on the comprehensive use of modern technologies and data to improve the quality of life of residents, the efficiency of city operations, and sustainable development and Mobility as a Service (MaaS) considered as a coherent system available on demand through single platform frameworks, emphasize data-driven integration and user convenience, often reframing mobility a service ecosystem rather than a set of infrastructures.

2.3. The Contemporary Policy Landscape and Inherent Challenges

In practice, the sustainable mobility agenda has been translated into a broad spectrum of urban and regional interventions. European-level strategies such as the European Green Deal [30], the Urban Mobility Framework [31], and the “Fit for 55” [32] package have set binding targets for emission reduction and modal shift, embedding transport reform in broader climate action. At the city level, policy tools and planning models vary widely, from Low Emission Zones and congestion charging to integrated ticketing systems, micromobility sharing systems, and spatial models such as the 15-Minute city [33]. These approaches share the common goal of reducing reliance on private motorized transport while increasing accessibility, quality of life, and environmental efficiency.

Despite these shared ambitions and lofty goals, a single, universally accepted path to achieving sustainable mobility remains elusive. This raises the question of whether sustainable mobility approaches exhibit recurring, cross-cutting types of barriers that can be systematically identified and addressed.

2.4. Critical Gaps in the Literature: Fragmentation, Sequencing, Participation, and Affective Disconnect

While the evolution of sustainable mobility has been richly documented, the existing literature largely remains descriptive, cataloging tools, tracing timelines, and listing paradigms, without critically interrogating why these approaches so frequently do not adapt well in practice. Three interconnected gaps dominate the field, each undermining the potential for systemic transformation:

First, policy fragmentation is rarely treated as a structural barrier, but rather as an inevitable consequence of urban complexity. However, research by Hull demonstrates that when transport, land use, environmental, and fiscal policies are managed by separate departments without shared KPIs or integrated funding streams, they operate at cross-purposes, creating policy silos that prevent coherence and dilute impact [133]. Santos et al. further show that fragmented interventions miss critical synergies: combining Congestion Pricing with improved cycling infrastructure yields greater emission reductions than either measure alone, yet such integration is rarely planned [134]. In Budapest, Ogunkunbi and Meszaros found that even when citizens support vehicle access regulations, resistance rises sharply if measures are introduced without visible alternatives or revenue recycling, revealing how fragmentation leads to perceived injustice, not just inefficiency [135]. Similarly, van der Craats et al. highlight how SUMPs often remain disconnected from housing or digital infrastructure planning, rendering them ineffective as true “integrated” frameworks [136]. This is not a mere coordination problem but an institutional misalignment that prevents any single tool from delivering its full potential.

Second, temporal sequencing, when and in what order policies are implemented, is almost entirely absent from normative frameworks. While scholars acknowledge the importance of pacing [126], few propose mechanisms for phased rollout. As Kimuli and Kirabira note, radical interventions like Low Emission Zones or Superblocks often trigger backlash precisely because they are introduced abruptly, without pilot phases, feedback loops, or sunset clauses, turning innovation into imposition [137]. The absence of “go/adjust/stop” gates means that even well-designed policies become sources of disruption, not transition. This gap is especially critical in contexts where public trust is already low, as evidenced by the “yellow vest” protests triggered by unsequenced fuel tax increases across Europe [9,76,135].

Third, public participation is routinely invoked, particularly in SUMPs, but often reduced to tokenistic consultation (Arnstein’s “informing” or “consultation”) rather than genuine co-creation (“collaboration,” “empowerment”) [121,129]. Research shows that when citizens are not involved in designing how change happens, they perceive policies as threats to autonomy, not opportunities for improvement, regardless of technical merit [120,123]. Ogunkunbi and Meszaros found that willingness to support urban vehicle access regulations in Budapest hinged not on environmental arguments, but on perceptions of fairness, transparency, and whether revenues would be reinvested locally, demonstrating that legitimacy is built through process, not just outcome [135]. Yet, most literature treats participation as a box-ticking exercise, not a core design principle.

Finally, affective dimensions, how policies are felt, are systematically neglected. Policies are framed in technocratic language such as “modal shift,” “CO₂ reduction,” and “efficiency.” Rarely do analyses engage with how these changes are experienced emotionally such as loss of freedom, erosion of identity, fear of exclusion, or hope for safety and belonging. As Flynn (2022) and Sengupta et al. (2022) warn, smart city solutions often reinforce alienation by prioritizing data over dignity [21,22]. The emotional resonance of a Superblock, pride in quieter streets, versus the resentment of a LEZ, anger at being “punished, is not an afterthought; it determines adoption. Yet, no major framework integrates affective framing as a core analytical dimension.

These four gaps, fragmentation, sequencing, superficial participation, and affective disconnect, collectively explain why sustainable mobility remains stuck between ambition and implementation. The field possesses abundant normative visions (Mobility Justice), spatial models (15-Minute City), governance frameworks (SUMPs), and technologies (MaaS), yet lacks a meta-framework capable of orchestrating them across scales, sequences, and social experiences. Existing theories, multi-level governance, socio-technical transitions, Mobility Justice, are cited, but rarely used to diagnose why policies fail. What is missing is not another tool, but a coherent logic of integration.

These four gaps, (1) policy fragmentation, (2) absence of temporal sequencing, (3) superficial participation, and (4) affective disconnect, collectively represent a critical blind spot in the sustainable mobility literature. While the field has produced rich normative visions, sophisticated spatial models, and advanced technological tools, it has largely failed to develop a coherent, cross-cutting logic of implementation that addresses how these elements should be integrated, in what sequence, with whom, and with what emotional resonance. Existing theoretical frameworks from multi-level governance to Socio-Technical Transitions and Mobility Justice offer valuable lenses for understanding what should change but provide limited guidance on how to orchestrate change in practice without triggering resistance, incoherence, or policy fatigue.

Recognizing this, the next section sets out the methodology adopted in this study, detailing how the selected approaches were analyzed against consistent criteria to capture both their intended design and the practical constraints shaping their implementation or development.

3. Methodology

This study employs a comprehensive qualitative policy analysis to assess contemporary approaches to sustainable mobility at multiple levels, from normative paradigms through a unified analytical perspective to operational tools.

Unlike previous studies, which typically focused on a single policy family or intervention type, this study goes beyond their conceptual or technical definitions, examining implementation logics, structural barriers, psychological resistance factors, governance constraints, and affective framing patterns. This multi-layered assessment enables the identification of critical “pressure points” where the effectiveness of a given approach may be compromised, not necessarily due to its inherent flaws, but due to the pace, framework, or governance mechanisms within which it is implemented. This combination allows for a systemic interpretation of each approach in context, revealing patterns of differences between normative ambitions and operational realities.

The analysis combines elements of multi-level governance theory [34], socio-technical transformation frameworks [35], and the mobility equity perspective [36], enabling the consideration of both institutional and user-centric dimensions. Such a synthesis has not yet been systematically applied to sustainable mobility policymaking, particularly with the explicit integration of spatial, behavioral, governance, and equity criteria.

Analytical Scope, Dimensions, and Data Collection

The assessment covered the latest and most widely used approaches to sustainable mobility in Europe. These approaches cover a broad spectrum, from conceptual paradigms, management solutions, spatial design interventions, regulatory and economic measures, and technological or service-based innovations.

The sustainable mobility approaches analysis was divided into structural attribute analysis and interpretive dimension analysis. Detailed analysis framework is presented in Figure 1.

From the structural attribute analysis perspective, each approach was classified according to four issues:

(1)

Ontological status—This term refers to the position and nature of an approach within the conceptual and practical context of urban mobility systems. It distinguishes whether an approach functions primarily as a high-level paradigm (e.g., mobility equity), a planning model (e.g., public transport-oriented development), a governance framework (e.g., European Union plans), a policy instrument (e.g., Congestion Pricing), or a service architecture (e.g., mobility accelerators). This classification follows the tradition of policy ontology mapping in transportation studies [23,37], helping to clarify the role a given approach plays within the broader policy ecosystem.

(2)

Scale—A concept that refers to the level of spatial and institutional application, from micro (e.g., street or locality), through meso (e.g., neighborhood, city, or region), to macro (e.g., national or international). Recognizing scale is crucial for understanding potential synergies and conflicts across different levels of governance [38].

(3)

Ecosystem role—This concept describes the functional position of an approach within the mobility system, such as integrator (connecting modes or actors), coordinator (aligning strategies), regulatory constraint (setting limits or standards), or enabler (providing capacity or resources) [39].

(4)

Key levers of ASI—This concept is derived from the “Avoid–Change–Improve” model [40], which organizes sustainable mobility efforts into three strategic directions

(a)

Avoid—Reduce or eliminate the need to travel, especially motorized vehicles, through spatial planning and demand management;

(b)

Shift—Encourage a shift from high-emission to low-emission modes (e.g., from private cars to public transport, walking, or cycling);

(c)

Improve—Increase the efficiency and environmental performance of existing modes through cleaner technologies, better operation, and infrastructure modernization.

To ensure consistent and reproducible classification, the following operational criteria were applied:

• Ontological Status—Classification Rules:
  • Normative Paradigm/Theory: Defines what mobility should be (values, rights, ethics), without prescribing how to achieve it.
  • Planning Model: Prescribes spatial or functional form (e.g., density, proximity, street design).
  • Governance Framework: Defines processes, institutions, or cycles for decision-making, coordination, or monitoring.
  • Policy Instrument/Economic Tool: Directly alters behavior or costs via incentives, disincentives, or mandates.
  • Service Architecture/Technology: Provides a user-facing platform or system integrating modes, data, or payments.
• Ecosystem Role—Classification Rules:
  • Integrator: Primary function is to connect previously separate elements (modes, data, operators, users) into a unified experience or system. Key criterion: enables interoperability.
  • Coordinator: Primary function is to align strategies, resources, or timelines across departments, agencies, or levels. Key criterion: synchronizes action without merging systems.
  • Regulatory Constraint: Primary function is to set binding rules, limits, or standards on access, behavior, or technology. Key criterion: defines what is permitted/prohibited.
  • Enabler: Primary function is to provide foundational capacity or remove barriers (infrastructure, data, funding) that make other interventions possible. Key criterion: creates preconditions.

These definitions were applied consistently during coding. All classification decisions, including borderline cases and justifications, are documented in Supplementary Material Table S1: Coding Protocol to ensure full transparency and replicability.

Following structural classification, each approach was assessed based on six interpretive dimensions that consider both technical and human factors in policy implementation:

(1)

Implementation logic—A concept related to strategic justification, divided into technology-based, behavior-change-oriented, spatially based, or regulatory approaches [23,35].

(2)

Structural barriers—Physical and systemic constraints, such as infrastructure deficits, land use conflicts, technical operability issues, and historical urban morphology [40].

(3)

Psychological resistance—Forms of resistance to transport phenomena include a perceived loss of convenience, attachment to a specific, familiar lifestyle, and change fatigue [41,42].

(4)

Governance constraints—Institutional constraints, such as a lack of cross-sectoral coordination, political instability, and limited administrative capacity [43].

(5)

Affective frames—Referring to all the dominant narratives and keywords used in official communications [3].

(6)

Emotional resonance—The degree to which an approach generates positive or negative emotional responses among stakeholders, influencing acceptance and long-term adoption [44].

To fill the analytical framework with relevant data, the study should use a combination of documentary and discursive sources based on three main criteria such as relevance, diversity, and policy salience. Relevance refers to approaches clearly linked to the Sustainable Development Goals and is widely cited in the academic literature or official policy documents. Diversity is connected to inclusion of both high-level paradigms and operational instruments to capture multi-scale governance and implementation contexts. And policy salience is related to evidence of active implementation or pilot projects in at least one European city, providing empirical justification. The resulting documentation body should ideally include a wide spectrum of sources, such as formal strategic and regulatory documents at European, national, and city levels, strategies for sustainable and smart mobility, national sustainable mobility strategies, Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, as well as conceptual contributions from the scientific literature. To ensure methodological rigor, transparency, and replicability, a structured Systematic Literature Review (SLR) protocol aligned with PRISMA guidelines should be used [138].

For analytical consistency, such sources can then be subjected to structured content analysis, with coding categories derived from the analytical framework (structural and interpretive dimensions). Attention should be paid to both explicit policy objectives and implicit assumptions, as well as to the framing of mobility in discursive and affective terms. Where primary policy texts lack sufficient detail, triangulation with secondary academic literature and case-based reports is recommended.

Detailed results of the analyses of individual policies are presented in Section 4.

4. Results

The analysis covered a broad spectrum of 19 sustainable mobility approaches including conceptual paradigms and meta-frames, spatial and urban models, governance framework, economic instruments, regulatory instruments and service architectures and technologies. Composition of the approaches was presented in Figure 2. This typology was designed to capture both the normative visions guiding policy development and the concrete tools shaping its practical implementation.

Subsequently, a structural attribute analysis was performed for each of the analyzed sustainable mobility approaches, following the methodology presented in Section 3.

The first group consists of conceptual paradigms and meta-frames that define the normative direction of sustainable mobility policies. These high-level constructs shape the goals and evaluation criteria of transport systems without prescribing detailed interventions.

Table 1. Classification of sustainable mobility approach by conceptual paradigms and meta-frames.

Approach	Ontological Status	Scale	Ecosystem Role	Key ASI Lever (s)	Characterization	Literature Sources
Mobility Justice	Normative paradigm/theory	Macro-meso	Norms for allocation	A-S	Fair distribution of mobility benefit. Mobility seen as a right	[29,36,45]
Accessibility-based planning	Paradigm/method	Meso	KPI/measurement layer	A-S	Access over speed	[46,47,48]
Avoid–Shift–Improve	Conceptual triad	Macro	Strategy template	A, S, I	Reduce demand, shift modes, improve technology	[49,50,51]

presents three key examples: Mobility Justice, accessibility-based planning, and the Avoid–Shift–Improve framework. Together, they promote fairness, accessibility, and strategic coherence, but their high level of abstraction means that successful application depends on effective translation into operational policies.

Another important group consists of urban and spatial models, which operationalize abstract sustainability principles through the physical organization of urban space. They influence travel patterns by determining the proximity of destinations, integration between modes, and the distribution of street space.

Table 2. Classification of sustainable mobility approach by spatial/urban models.

Approach	Ontological Status	Scale	Ecosystem Role	Main ASI Lever (s)	Characterization	Literature Sources
15-Minute City	Planning model	Meso	Ecosystem orchestration at neighborhood scale	A-S	Proximity/localism of daily functioning	[33,52,53]
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)	Planning model	Meso	Transport integration	S	Density; car independence	[54,55]
Complete Streets	Design concept/protocol	Micro-meso	Cross-layer street design	S	Streets openness	[56,57]
Shared Space	Design concept	Micro	Micro-interaction rules	S	Minimal segregation; negotiated movement	[58,59]
Superblocks/car-free zones	Area intervention model	Meso	Space-relocation node	A-S	Traffic calming; reclaiming street space	[60,61]

presents five such approaches, from the neighborhood-scale 15-Minute City and Transit-Oriented Development to more localized interventions such as Complete Streets, Shared Space, and Superblocks. They illustrate the diversity of spatial strategies currently shaping urban mobility agendas. While they differ in scope and design logic, their shared feature is the redistribution of urban space away from private motorized transport.

The third group is dedicated to governance frameworks and strategies. These approaches set the rules for how sustainable mobility policies are developed, coordinated, and financed. They usually operate at the city, regional, or national level and are meant to provide long-term direction and ensure that transport goals fit within wider sustainability agendas. In that group, Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) that promote integrated and participatory planning at the local or regional scale, and national or regional strategies that outline general policy priorities and funding lines, are listed and presented in

Table 3. Classification of sustainable mobility approach based on governance frameworks and strategies.

Approach	Ontological Status	Scale	Ecosystem Role	Main ASI Lever (s)	Characterization	Literature Sources
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs)	Governance framework	Meso	Ecosystem orchestration	A-S-I	Integrated participatory, strategist planning	[62,63,64]
National/regional sustainable mobility strategies	Policy frameworks	Macro	Direction and funding alignment	A-S-I	NDCs, rail investment	[65,66,67]

. These frameworks are often described as the backbone of coherent mobility policy. At the same time, their results depend heavily on whether institutions have enough capacity, whether different agencies cooperate, and whether political priorities remain stable over time.

A further category are economic instruments, used to steer travel behavior by making some choices more expensive and others more attractive. They can work on very different scales—from local measures such as parking fees to national fuel taxes. In this group (

Table 4. Classification of sustainable mobility approaches based on economic instruments.

Approach	Ontological Status	Scale	Ecosystem Role	Main ASI Lever (s)	Characterization	Literature Sources
Congestion/road pricing	Economic instrument	Meso	Demand lever	A	Charging for entry, usage to reduce congestion	[68,69,70]
Parking pricing and management	Economic instrument	Micro-meso	Local demand lever	A	Paid zones, supply caps, demand-responsive pricing	[71,72,73]
Fuel/CO2 taxes/feebates	Financial instrument	Macro	System-wide price signal	A-I	Carbon-consistent fuels/vehicle incentives	[74,75,76]

) I included congestion and road pricing, parking management schemes, as well as fuel or CO₂ taxes and feebates. These measures can reduce car use or encourage cleaner vehicles, but their success is rarely only a matter of design. Much depends on whether people see them as fair and whether the promised benefits are visible in everyday life. Because of that, they often turn into politically sensitive tools.

In addition to economic tools, regulatory instruments form another distinct category, setting binding rules and standards that shape mobility systems. They range from area-based access restrictions to safety regulations.

Table 5. Classification of sustainable mobility approaches based on regulatory instruments.

Approach	Ontological Status	Scale	Ecosystem Role	Main ASI Lever (s)	Characterization	Literature Sources
Low/Zero Emission Zones (LEZ/ZEZ)	Access regulation	Meso	Constraint on the ecosystem	I	Entry criteria by emission lass	[77,78]
Vision Zero/speed management	Safety paradigm/regulation	Meso	Safety layer	A-S	Safe systems; speed limits	[79,80,81]

presents two representative cases, Low or Zero Emission Zones (LEZ/ZEZ), which limit access for high-emission vehicles, and Vision Zero/speed management frameworks, which focus on eliminating traffic fatalities through safe system design and speed limits. While these measures can deliver measurable safety and environmental gains, they can also generate pushback from affected groups, particularly where restrictions are perceived as sudden or inadequately supported by alternatives.

Finally, service architectures and technologies form the most dynamic part of the sustainable mobility field. They have grown quickly with digitalization, electrification, and new business models. What makes them distinct is that they often work as integrators—bringing together different modes and services into something that feels like a single system for the user. In this group (

Table 6. Classification of sustainable mobility approaches based on service architectures and technologies.

Approach	Ontological Status	Scale	Ecosystem Role	Main ASI Lever (s)	Characterization	Literature Sources
Mobility as a Service	Service architecture	Meso	Platform orchestration	S-I	Multimodal integration, booking, payment, rental via application	[82,83,84]
Shared mobility	Service/instrument	Micro-meso	First/last mile layer	S-I	Vehicle sharing and subscriptions	[85,86,87]
Electromobility	Technology shift	Macro	Energy layer	I	Decarbonizing propulsion	[88,89,90]
Charging infrastructure and grid integration	Infrastructure/technology	Meso-macro	Energy layer of ecosystem	I	Networks, demand management	[91,92,93]

) I looked at Mobility as a Service (MaaS), shared mobility schemes, as well as electromobility and charging infrastructure linked to the energy grid. These innovations are frequently promoted as ways to make travel easier and cleaner. In practice, however, their impact depends on whether systems can work together, whether infrastructure is sufficient, and whether users are willing to adopt them over the long term.

The overview presented in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 shows how broad the field of sustainable mobility has become. It now spans high-level paradigms, spatial models, governance frameworks, economic and regulatory tools, as well as service architectures and technologies. Each of these categories brings different mechanisms and operates on its own scale, which means that in practice they rarely stand alone. Instead, they form an ecosystem of potentially complementary strategies.

Building on this classification, the next step was to examine how these approaches are framed and applied. Following the analytical framework outlined in Section 3, an interpretive dimension analysis of each approach was carried out by looking at their implementation logics, barriers, governance constraints, and affective framings. This allows us to see not only what these approaches promise in theory, but also the challenges they face in practice.

The first step of the interpretive analysis concerns conceptual paradigms and meta-frames, which provide the normative foundations for sustainable mobility policy but operate at a high level of abstraction.

Table 7. Interpretive dimension analysis of conceptual paradigms and meta-frames in sustainable mobility.

Approach	Implementation Logic	Structural Barriers	Psychological Resistance	Governance Constraints	Affective Frames	Keywords	Emotional Resonance	Literature Sources
Mobility Justice	Normative guidelines for fair distribution	Lack of standards for measuring equity at the operational level; incomplete socio-demographic data; weak integration in SUMP metrics; difficulty in mapping transport poverty	“Loss of privileges” for current drivers, concerns about “punishing drivers”, fatigue with moralizing current habits; low visibility of short-term “benefits”	Fragmentation of competences in the transport–housing–care area; no equity reporting obligations; short policy cycles	Mobility, fairness, inclusion, transport poverty, capabilities	“right to mobility”, “justice”	High in marginalized groups; ambivalent among the public, increasing with evidence of improved transport accessibility	[3,36,45]
Accessibility-based planning	Shifting the goal from “get there quickly” to “get close” based on arrival times, number of opportunities within a given time; common measurement layer for planning	Data on activities and function distribution; dynamic time availability; different transport user profiles; integration of transport models; limited access mapping in smaller cities	Reluctance to change habits, overestimating car speed (speed-oriented mobility); distrust of “algorithmic” justice	Inconsistent integration in planning codes—the need to standardize accessibility metrics in strategic documents; coordination with housing policy	Access over speed; time-to-opportunity, proximity benefits	“accessibility”, “proximity”	Good with proper visualization of benefit; trust, optimism	[46]
Avoid–Shift–Improve	A three-way transport strategy framework by avoiding demand, shifting to sustainable modes, and improving transport efficiency	Reductionism due to excessive focus on “Improvement” from a technological perspective; difficulty in weighing paths; lack of an integrator between individual pillars of ASI	Skepticism towards behavior change	“Technological optimism” versus fear of restrictions; change overload when actions are taken simultaneously	Departmentalization, i.e., energy–transport–planning; lack of common progress indicators between the ASI pillars; efficiency and climate responsibility	“reduce demand”, “modal shift”; “avoid traffic”, “mode shift”, “clean tech”, “co-benefits”	Responsibility, urgency; generally positive if communicated quickly; indicating local benefits	[49,51]

summarizes the findings for three influential approaches: Mobility Justice, accessibility-based planning, and the Avoid–Shift–Improve framework. The results highlight both their value and inherent limitations. On the one hand, these paradigms provide powerful guiding visions and ethical benchmarks for policymaking. On the other, their practical application is often constrained by measurement gaps, fragmented governance responsibilities, and psychological resistance linked to lifestyle habits or perceptions of fairness. What also emerges is the tension between the urgency of implementation and the need for careful translation into everyday practices. While these paradigms set ambitious directions, their effectiveness ultimately depends on whether institutions can operationalize them without losing sight of local realities and social acceptance.

The next part of the analysis turns to spatial and urban models, which bring high-level aims down to street level by reorganizing land use, reallocating road space, and tightening links to public transport.

Table 8. Interpretive dimension analysis of conceptual paradigms spatial and urban models in sustainable mobility approaches.

Approach	Implementation Logic	Structural Barriers	Psychological Resistance	Governance Constraints	Affective Frames	Keywords	Emotional Resonance	Literature Sources
15-Minute City	Locating functions close to home; designing “daily life” on a neighborhood scale (i.e., proximity)	Land use rigidity, zoning codes; inherited development; shortage of services in the periphery; risks of gentrification; limited habitability in the centers	Concerns about “neighborhoods being shut down,” loss of “freedom to drive and live”; concerns about costs and jobs	Lack of cross-sector planning; transport-development-services integration; the need to reform standards and indicators	Proximity, quality of life	“nearby”, “local”	Strong support from families/seniors; controversy among long-distance commuters; controversial among the wealthier groups of society	[33,52,53]
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)	Transit based density; reducing car dependency	Infrastructure cost (land costs; resistance to density; risk of “transit gentrification”	Preference for private car convenience; concerns about crowds, parking; changing neighborhood identity	Weak TOD policy mandated; developer–city–operator cooperation; parking and planning reforms	Sustainable growth; density; car-independent areas	“transit hub”, “Reliability”, “transport efficiency”	Good for providing public services and green spaces	[54,55]
Complete Streets	Equal space for all modes; redesigning streets for all users; design standards	Street width constraints; conflicts with through traffic; reconstruction costs.	Resistance from drivers—drivers’ concerns about losing driving lanes and free parking spaces; fear of “traffic jams”	Traffic code conflicts; coordination between road managers; harmonization of guidelines	Inclusivity; Safety	“for everyone”; “multi-modal comfort”	Fairness, welcome but after implementation according to the principle: you see the effect, you believe in the concept	[56,57]
Shared Space	Minimal segregation; negotiating priority, slowing traffic	Safety concerns; requires high quality; accessibility issues for blind people	Uncertainty about traffic rules; fear for the safety of especially vulnerable road users	Liability uncertainty; legal risk/liability; need of national guidelines	Mutual respect	“shared”	Trust, attentiveness—increases after pilot implementation	[58,59]
Superblocks/car-free zones	Recalibration of the street grid (e.g., local loops, ring traffic); reclamation of public space	Peripheral detours; need for intensive changes in traffic organization; carefully thought-out travel logistics required; political pushback	Attachment to through-traffic	Retailer opposition; concerns from trade and drivers; initially, acceptance declines; requires a long-term program and evaluation	Community health; quietness	“calm streets”	Pride, ownership	[61,94,95]

summarizes five widely used sustainable mobility approaches such as the 15-Minute City, Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), Complete Streets, Shared Space, and Superblocks/car-free zones. Those kinds of models make change tangible, but they also inherit hard constraints: zoning and legacy urban form, reconstruction costs, delivery logistics, and the need to coordinate across departments. Patterns in Table 8 point to recurring acceptance thresholds at the curb (as lanes, parking, loading), place-identity concerns, and equity questions around displacement and access. The dominant frames are proximity and quality of life (15-Minute City), sustainable growth and reliability (TOD), inclusivity and safety (Complete Streets), mutual respect (Shared Space), and calm streets and health (Superblocks).

As with the paradigms, strengths and limits sit side by side: where cross-sector planning, clear standards, and staged implementation are present, resistance tends to soften; where they are absent, pushback persists. The table captures these contrasts without pre-judging outcomes, setting up the discussion on how pacing, sequencing, and co-creation may moderate results.

Spatial models are highly visible interventions that quickly shape public perception. They often bring co-benefits for road safety, air quality, and everyday social life. They also tend to prompt resistance, especially among groups concerned about loss of mobility, freedom, or local economic impacts. Governance frameworks and strategies address the institutional side: how actions are coordinated, financed, and monitored across sectors and tiers of government. Typically operating at city, regional, or national level, they are meant to provide continuity beyond single projects.

Table 9. Interpretive dimension analysis of governance frameworks and strategies in sustainable mobility approaches.

Approach	Implementation Logic	Structural Barriers	Psychological Resistance	Governance Constraints	Affective Frames	Keywords	Emotional Resonance	Literature Sources
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs)	A planning cycle based on participation, vision and monitoring; integration of sectors	Limited data integration, unequal technical capacity; competence and data gap; difficulties in translating into budget and projects	Perception of over-consultation without results; skepticism towards “strategy”	Institutional silos; interdepartmental fragmentation; political instability	Collaboration long-term vision	“integrated planning”, “participation”	Neutral-positive, grows with quick wins	[62,63,64]
National/regional sustainable mobility strategies	Centralized policy direction; guiding framework and financing; synchronization with the Green Deal	Disconnection from local realities	Perceived top-down imposition; the gap between the ambition and implementation capacity of local governments; “compliance over learning”	Funding gaps, unstable priorities; “Big Goal” fatigue; household cost concerns	National commitment	“Strategic investment”	Security, responsibility; dependent on visible local benefits	[96,97,98,99]

summarizes two common instruments known as Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) and national or regional sustainable mobility strategies. Both approaches aim to offer coherence and direction, yet recurrent obstacles include limited capacity, weak data integration, and entrenched institutional silos. Public acceptance often hinges on early, visible results and on the stability of funding lines and responsibility.

The next part of the analysis was economic issues. Economic instruments act through price signals, shaping travel demand and fleet choices at local and national scales. Their performance depends on design details (exemptions, revenue recycling, timing) and on perceptions of fairness and visible reinvestment of proceeds.

Table 10. Interpretive dimension analysis of sustainable mobility approach based on economic instruments.

Approach	Implementation Logic	Structural Barriers	Psychological Resistance	Governance Constraints	Affective Frames	Keywords	Emotional Resonance	Literature Sources
Congestion/road pricing	Demand-driven traffic management by varying rates by time/location	High infrastructure cost; need for an efficient Intelligent Transport System; risk of “detours”	Perceived as unfair to low-income drivers; seen as a “commuting tax”; concerns about fairness	Weak revenue earmarking; requires a national legal framework; referenda/political legitimization	Efficiency, fairness, time reliability	“reduce congestion”, “pay for use”	Irritation acceptance if reinvested	[100,101]
Parking pricing and management	Demand-side space management; pricing to occupancy targets (e.g., 65–85%); demand-driven circulating traffic control	Enforcement gaps; occupancy data, parking meter interoperability; conflict with minimum parking policy	Habitual car use—“I’m paying for something that was free”; attachment to a parking space close to home	Local political resistance; district decisions; the need for unbundling in planning	Fair allocation of space	“pay-to-park”	Acceptance, annoyance	[102,103]
Fuel/CO2 taxes/feebates	National environmental pricing	Regressive impacts; policy response to price increases; vulnerability of low-income groups	Resistance to higher costs; strong resentment if no compensation; “yellow vest” effect	Political turnover; requires social protection and revenue earmarking	Climate responsibility	“polluter pays”, transport efficiency”	Responsibility, anger; low without compensation; acceptance increases with carbon dividends	[104,105]

summarizes congestion/road pricing, parking pricing and management, and fuel or CO₂ taxes and feebates across the interpretive dimensions (implementation logic, structural barriers, psychological resistance, governance constraints, affective frames, keywords, emotional resonance).

A complementary next step in the analysis considers regulatory instruments, which complete the picture by relying on binding rules rather than incentives. Two widely used examples, Low/Zero Emission Zones (LEZ/ZEZ), which sets access standards by vehicle emissions, and Vision Zero/speed management, which lowers and enforces speeds within a safe system approach, are presented in

Table 11. Interpretive dimension analysis of sustainable mobility approaches based on regulatory instruments.

Approach	Implementation Logic	Structural Barriers	Psychological Resistance	Governance Constraints	Affective Frames	Keywords	Emotional Resonance	Literature Sources
Low/Zero Emission Zones (LEZ/ZEZ)	Emission-based access control; forcing fleet modernization	Limits enforcement capacity; monitoring; need for support for logistics and small and medium-sized enterprises; risk of traffic spillover to other areas of the city	Perceived as excluding the poorest drivers; fear of costs	Legal challenges; legal robustness, consistency with national/EU standards	Clean air, health	“zero emission zone”	Relief, resentment; mixed	[106,107]
Vision Zero/speed management	Safety-first urban design; “Safe System”: design, speeds, tolerance for human error; goal: 0 fatalities	Road network retrofitting costs; road system reconstruction; speed consistency “between zones”	Speed culture attachment—resistance to lower limits; “loss of mobility”; the “guilty user” myth	Inconsistent enforcement; requires sustainable security institutions and financing; police–road–health coordination	Safe journeys	“zero deaths”	Security, pride	[108]

.

Complementary step addresses service architectures and technologies, which operate as integrators within the mobility ecosystem. These approaches (presented in

Table 12. Interpretive dimension analysis of sustainable mobility approaches based on service architectures and technologies.

Approach	Implementation Logic	Structural Barriers	Psychological Resistance	Governance Constraints	Affective Frames	Keywords	Emotional Resonance	Literature Sources
Mobility as a Service	Digital integration; a platform that integrates planning, booking, and payment; service bundling	Data interoperability issues	Application fatigue, trust in platform; distrust of subscriptions; concerns about privacy and “app addiction”; reluctance to infiltrate service providers due to access to sensitive data	Lack of operator cooperation; the need for a top-down regulatory framework for data, platform neutrality, and public purposes	Convenience	“all-in-one”, “integration”	Ease, curiosity; after pilot tests—good	[109,110,111]
Shared Mobility	Flexible access; vehicle sharing for first/last mile and reducing car ownership	Supply gaps in low-density areas	Hygiene, reliability concerns; parking/charging infrastructure; devastation; seasonality of demand; safety concerns with scooter sharing; attachment to “possession”	Lack of supportive infrastructure; licenses, operating zones, tariff integration with public transport; concern about data exchange	Flexibility; access no ownership	“sharing”	Variable; high in younger users and in wealthier societies in the case of car sharing	[112,113]
Electromobility	Technology substitution; decarbonizing the drivetrain; synergy with renewable energy sources	High upfront cost; unevenly distributed charging network; impact on the network; costs and availability of cars	Range anxiety, battery costs, technological uncertainty	Charging standards, investment support, and energy tariffs needed	Clean technology	“zero emission”	Pride, anxiety	[114,115]
Charging infrastructure and grid integration	Energy-transport integration; charging time/power control; bidirectional energy flow	Grid capacity limits; hardware and protocol standards; cost-effectiveness; battery life	Waiting time frustration; Fear of battery degradation; distrust of “giving off current”	Investment coordination; need for market roles for aggregators; dynamic tariff regulations	Reliability; flexibility; cheaper bills	“fast charging”; grids support	Trust, impatience; it grows with bills showing savings	[116]

) such as Mobility as a Service (MaaS), shared mobility schemes, electromobility, and charging infrastructure with grid integration, link modes, platforms, and payments into end-to-end user journeys and data flows.

The synthesis of cross-cutting implementation challenges across 19 sustainable mobility approaches is presented in

Table 13. Synthesis: Cross-cutting implementation challenges across 19 sustainable mobility approaches.

Challenge Type	Definition	Most Affected Approaches (Examples)	Empirical Manifestations (from Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12 and Literature)	Observed Implementation Gap (What is Missing for Success)
Policy Layering	Implementing policies simultaneously without sequencing, causing overload.	15-Minute City, Congestion Pricing, LEZ, Parking Mgmt, Superblocks	Public perceives “closure of districts”; “travel tax”); lack of visible alternatives before restrictions (Table 8, Table 10, and Table 11); leads to “policy fatigue” [15].	Clear sequencing, pilot phases, visible alternatives before restrictions.
Affective Mismatch	Mismatch between technocratic framing and citizens’ emotional experience.	Mobility Justice, Vision Zero, MaaS, Shared Mobility	Framing as “sjustice” or “zero victimes” feels moralizing; users feel guilt, not empowerment (Table 7, Table 11, and Table 12); lack of narrative on tangible, local benefits [122,123].	Emotionally resonant communication focused on local, tangible benefits (not abstract values).
Governance Silos	Fragmented institutions, lack of coordination across departments/levels.	SUMPs, MaaS, Electromobility, National Strategies, TOD	SUMPs fail due to lack of transport–housing coordination (Table 9); MaaS fails due to lack of data interoperability (Table 12); „policy silos” reduce effectiveness [43,120].	Cross-departmental teams, shared KPIs, open data standards, unified budgets.
Future-Readiness Gap	Lack of adaptability, reversibility, and preparation for future shocks.	MaaS, Electromobility, Shared Mobility, Autonomous Vehicles (implicit)	Platforms become obsolete or fail (Table 12); infrastructure investments (e.g., chargers) lack flexibility for tech shifts [114,116]; no “sunset clauses” or pilot “go/adjust/stop” gates.	Adaptive, reversible pilots; flexible financing; scenario planning for tech shifts.

.

To further illustrate the intensity and distribution of these implementation challenges across the 19 approaches,

Table 14. Heatmap of challenge intensity across 19 sustainable mobility approaches.

Approach/Challenge Type	Policy Layering	Affective Mismatch	Governance Silos	Future-Readiness Gap
Mobility Justice	🟡	🔴	🟡	🟢
Accessibility-Based Planning	🟡	🟡	🟡	🟢
Avoid–Shift–Improve	🟡	🟡	🟡	🟢
15-Minute City	🔴	🟡	🟢	🟢
Transit-Oriented Development	🟡	🟡	🟡	🟢
Complete Streets	🔴	🟡	🟢	🟢
Shared Space	🟡	🟡	🟢	🟢
Superblocks	🔴	🟡	🟢	🟢
SUMPs	🟡	🟡	🔴	🟡
National/Regional Strategies	🟡	🟡	🔴	🟡
Congestion Pricing	🔴	🔴	🟡	🟢
Parking Management	🔴	🟡	🟡	🟢
Fuel/CO2 Taxes	🟡	🔴	🟡	🟢
LEZ/ZEZ	🔴	🔴	🟡	🟢
Vision Zero	🟡	🔴	🟡	🟢
MaaS	🟡	🟡	🔴	🔴
Shared Mobility	🟡	🟡	🔴	🔴
Electromobility	🟡	🟡	🔴	🔴
Charging Infrastructure	🟡	🟡	🔴	🔴

Legend: 🔴—High, 🟡—Medium, 🟢—Low.

presents a heatmap visualization. Each cell reflects the relative severity of a specific challenge type for a given approach, synthesized from the interpretive analysis presented in Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12. This visualization confirms that the identified challenges are not isolated incidents but systemic and recurrent patterns, reinforcing the need for a unifying meta-framework.

The results obtained are analyzed in detail in the next section of the article.

5. Discussion

The conducted analysis demonstrates that the current landscape of sustainable mobility policies is rich in innovative concepts, diverse planning models, and increasingly sophisticated governance, regulatory, and technological tools.

The synthesis presented in Table 13 and Table 14 shows that the core challenge in sustainable mobility is not a scarcity of tools, but a systemic implementation gap in how they are orchestrated. The four recurrent challenges of Policy Layering, Affective Mismatch, Governance Silos, and Future-Readiness Gap are not isolated incidents, but cross-cutting patterns inherent to the current, fragmented policy paradigm.

For instance,

-

The backlash against the 15-Minute City (Table 8) is not a rejection of proximity, but a reaction to Policy Layering—introducing spatial restrictions without first building trust or providing alternatives;

-

The lukewarm adoption of MaaS (Table 12) stems not from technological flaws, but from Governance Silos (lack of data standards) and Affective Mismatch (framing as ‘convenience’ while users feel ‘app fatigue’);

-

The political volatility of Congestion Pricing (Table 10) is a direct result of Affective Mismatch—failing to frame it as a ‘fair exchange’ (paying for cleaner air, better buses) and instead allowing it to be perceived as a ‘commuting tax’.

This diversity constitutes a significant strength—it allows cities and regions to adapt solutions to their specific socio-economic, spatial, and environmental contexts, thus avoiding the limitations of a one-size-fits-all approach. Many of the reviewed approaches are strongly grounded in academic theory and long-standing urban planning traditions. Concepts such as Mobility Justice or accessibility-based planning provide a strong normative foundation, while spatial models like the 15-Minute City or Complete Streets bring these ideas to life in tangible urban forms. Governance frameworks, such as SUMPs, and economic or regulatory instruments contribute to policy coherence and effectiveness, while service architectures like MaaS or shared mobility expand the spectrum of available transport options.

Among the leading positive features, the following should be highlighted:

• Clear normative direction—Paradigms such as Mobility Justice and accessibility planning provide robust ethical and social foundations for decision-making;
• Scalable applicability—Approaches such as TOD or SUMPs can be adapted across different spatial scales, from neighborhoods to metropolitan regions;
• Measurable impacts—Economic and regulatory instruments, when carefully designed, can deliver rapid reductions in congestion, emissions, and accidents.

While each category offers valuable tools, frameworks, and inspiration, despite the availability of these well-developed concepts, the analysis shows that their implementation often suffers from systemic weaknesses, many of which have been repeatedly noted in the literature.

The first issue is how the approaches are implemented. Very often, their implementation often takes place in parallel rather than synergistically, leading to a fragmentation of the mobility landscape [23]. The research carried out allows us to conclude that, above all, there is a lack of a common pace and sequence of actions. High-level paradigms such as Mobility Justice or accessibility-based planning assume long-term equity and accessibility goals [3,28], but their translation into practice is difficult due to the lack of a clear implementation sequence. In many cases, policies are implemented in a Policy Layering mode, which means that successive policies overlap without first extinguishing or adapting existing ones. This results in a “policy silo”, where even well-designed tools lose their effectiveness if they are not embedded in a coherent implementation schedule [42].

Next, it should be noted that despite its numerous advantages, each method is characterized by structural deficiencies, ranging from insufficient data integration in MaaS, to reluctance to share data, to gaps in enforcement in LEZ/ZEZ [76]. Psychological barriers, such as resistance to lifestyle changes, fear of losing mobile freedom, and lack of trust in digital platforms, are consistent with the findings of research on the acceptance of social innovation [117,118]. It is worth noting that these barriers often escalate when changes are too rapid or imposed without a sense of co-creation [119,120].

Another issue worth emphasizing is insufficient participation and Affective Mismatch. While many policies claim to follow and declare participatory principles, research shows that consultation processes are sometimes perceived as a façade. Initiatives such as sudden road space reallocation or new pricing schemes for parking, for example, are often introduced without gradual adaptation, reducing public acceptance and perceived legitimacy [121]. In the analyzed cases, technocratic frameworks dominate, which limit affective resonance with everyday user experiences [122]. There is a lack of affective fit that could strengthen the sense of agency and acceptance of change [123]. As a result, even well-planned regulations or economic instruments can provoke anger or resistance if the narrative around them does not build positive engagement.

A significant problem is also the governance vulnerability. Dependence on political cycles, varying institutional capacities, and fluctuating priorities undermines the long-term stability required for transformative change. Institutional instability and changing political agendas disrupt long-term continuity, a problem well-documented in sustainability transitions literature [120].

It is worth noting that the analyzed spatial models rarely formalize refinement, decision thresholds, and data standards. While they effectively describe what needs to be changed in space, they do not fully indicate how to adapt to technological and institutional uncertainty.

Regarding Future-Readiness, e.g., the use of autonomous vehicles, the policies do not include detailed details for dealing with automation, m.in. open standards, data governance, responsiveness and business continuity, presentation of scenarios for adaptation schemes, pilots, reversibility or recycling issues and flexible financing.

From an intermodality point of view, SUMPs and MaaS provide the largest of the policies analyzed by emphasizing clear integration. Spatial models enhance active connectivity and local availability but require a specific operational layer. It is worth noting that price-regulatory instruments do not create alternative travel chains on their own. Interestingly, the weakest link is water solutions, e.g., the use of maritime transport or inland navigation as support for individual motorization. They represent the untapped potential of river and port cities.

It is therefore essential to clarify a foundational insight, while Mobility Justice is often described as a “normative paradigm” and parking pricing as an “economic tool,” this distinction obscures a deeper truth. In public policy literature, economic instruments are not merely technical devices, they are policy instruments embedded with normative values. As Martens argues, “pricing is not neutral; it is a moral choice disguised as economics” [30]. Setting a high parking fee is not just about revenue generation, it is a deliberate decision to prioritize environmental and social goals over individual car ownership, just as declaring mobility a right is a moral stance against exclusion. Both reflect a vision of what kind of city we want: one where access is determined by income, or one where access is guaranteed by design.

Similarly, Banister and Santos et al. emphasize that all sustainable mobility policies, whether conceptual, spatial, or economic, operate within the same governance ecosystem [25,134]. They face identical implementation challenges: fragmentation, resistance, and misalignment. A Low Emission Zone does not have problems because it is a regulation but because it was introduced without revenue recycling, community engagement, or alternatives. A Mobility Justice framework does not fail because it is abstract—it fails because no city has translated its principles into measurable, enforceable indicators across departments.

The four identified challenges—Policy Layering, Affective Mismatch, Governance Silos, Future-Readiness Gap—are not merely technical problems, but symptoms of deeper systemic drivers. Policy Layering is often a direct consequence of short electoral cycles, where new administrations rush to implement visible “flagship” projects without integrating them into existing frameworks—creating incoherence and eroding long-term strategy [98]. Affective Mismatch frequently stems from technocratic governance, where digital platforms (MaaS) or emissions models are prioritized over lived experience—leading to solutions that optimize data, not dignity [21,22]. Governance Silos are perpetuated by institutional path dependency—transport, housing, and digital departments operate with separate budgets, KPIs, and career incentives, making cross-sectoral collaboration a career risk, not a reward. Future-Readiness Gaps reflect a culture of project-based funding, where cities invest in fixed infrastructure (e.g., charging stations) without building adaptive capacity (e.g., open APIs, scenario planning) locking them into rigid, soon-to-be-obsolete systems.

This systemic view—seeing all tools as expressions of a shared implementation challenge—is precisely what existing theoretical frameworks fail to provide. While multi-level governance (MLG) excels at mapping institutional scales (EU → city → neighborhood), it offers no guidance on temporal sequencing—how to phase interventions to avoid Policy Layering and build legitimacy. Socio-Technical Regime Theory (STRN) powerfully explains long-term transitions (e.g., fossil to electric), but remains silent on the micro-politics of implementation on how to manage citizen fear during disruptive shifts like introducing LEZs or Superblocks. Mobility Justice sets a robust normative compass (fairness, access as a right), but lacks procedural protocols to translate ethics into action—reducing it, in practice, to a rhetorical aspiration rather than a design principle.

The patterns diagnosed in Table 13—Policy Layering, Affective Mismatch, Governance Silos, Future-Readiness Gap—are not random. They are direct consequences of these theoretical blind spots:

• Policy Layering stems from MLG’s static, scale-focused lens—ignoring the need for pacing;
• Affective Mismatch reflects STRN’s technocratic bias—neglecting how policies feel to users;
• Governance Silos expose the gap between Mobility Justice’s lofty goals and the absence of cross-departmental KPIs or co-creation mandates;
• Future-Readiness Gap reveals how all three theories undervalue adaptability, reversibility, and open standards.

From the point of view of the automotive industry, the most rigorous approaches are price and regulation instruments and zonal instruments in the form of congestion/road pricing, parking policies, fuel policies, and LEZ/ZEZ zones. On the spatial side, on the other hand, these are Superblocks and car-free zones. Such practices pose the greatest risk of conflict and rollbacks increase with hard tools related to fees. Acceptance is based on the perception of justice, i.e., a clear indication of who pays and what they receive out of it, as well as the visibility of real local benefits, e.g., improvement of air quality, increase in safety.

Medium level of restrictiveness is shown by Vsion Zero, Complete Streets, and TOD. They try to maintain a balance between the means of transport. Natural or indirect remain MaaS, Mobility Justice, and Shared Space. They do not penalize for owning a car, rather they offer substitutes to create a layer of coordination.

The results show that there is a rich ecosystem of solutions, from spatial tools like 15-Minute City to regulatory frameworks like Vision Zero. However, the potential for synergies between these approaches remains largely untapped. For example, the integration of LEZ with MaaS and micromobility could significantly alleviate the barriers to access for users, but this would require consistent, phased implementation and coordination at multiple levels [124] and, above all, appropriate co-creation.

The synthesis of these findings underscores that the main challenge is not a lack of solutions but the absence of a unifying, adaptive, and psychologically sustainable meta-framework. This observation resonates with calls in transition studies [125] for integrated governance that bridges socio-technical, spatial, and behavioral dimensions.

6. Proposal of an Original Approach to Sustainable Mobility—“CalmMobility”

The literature indicates that mobility transformations that are socially sustainable require social learning, adaptive management, and a sequential pace of change [118,126]. The current pace of implementation of many reforms is reactive and accelerated, which is conducive to conflicts and a decline in public trust.

In view of the above, the CalmMobility approach is proposed.

CalmMobility is a global, systemic mobility governance framework that delivers on the SDGs through the leisurely pace and sequencing of change, prioritizing opportunity over restriction, and equitable co-determination by the expert community; it works modularly, so that you can locally deploy what works and withdraw or modify what does not.

CalmMobility principles combine three main layers of comprehensiveness, pacing–sequencing–inclusion, complexity and Future-Readiness. Comprehensiveness means thoughtful planning of all kinds of transport changes tailored to the needs of a given area, the needs of the community, and the economic situation. It means proposing various types of solutions based on the use of various forms of transport—intermodality is the use of less popular solutions such as the use of the possibilities of seaports, inland waterways, and the possibility of transporting cars by rail. It is also about testing the implementation of various types of policies and approaches to mobility, creating scenarios showing what can change a given activity, and how it can affect a specific area of the economy or society. It is an approach to looking at all kinds of initiatives globally, and not only from the point of view of the desire to achieve a quick change at the expense of another. For example, closing the lane and creating a pedestrian zone, which entails moving car traffic to another area of the city, and ultimately not achieving the attractiveness of the pedestrian zone and closing service points since these places cannot be reached in a convenient way for the public. The creation of the concept of action should be based on educating society at various levels of education, about transport in general, and all the opportunities offered by mobility. Next, the approach should be based on the concept of open innovation, social co-creation—consulting and asking about real needs and about the vision of society about what will happen “after” some implementation (citizens’ panels, deliberative polling), engaging, but also on the strong participation of experts, on the inclusion in decision-making processes not only of politicians, but also of scientists, economists, specialists in planning public space, architects, and builders in order to provide comprehensive solutions. The second pillar is pacing–sequencing–inclusion, which, after creating an action plan, is based on creating pilot actions with “go/adjust/stop” gates, staging possible changes, but also allows for reversibility (sunset clauses) if a given solution does not fulfill its task. The third pillar is to act in such a way as to be as prepared as possible for the changes to come. This includes the use of open data standards, interoperability, scenarios and preparation for innovative solutions such as autonomous vehicles, automation, etc., and resilience and adaptive finance.

The CalmMobility concept is based on the consistent use of various types of tools, from the currently developed sustainable mobility approaches to tools that include, m.in, mobility school program, civic-tech for consultation and deliberation (notifications, panelemates, integration with open data), Living Labs/sandboxes: spatial and service pilots (habs, combined tickets, water interfaces, “car-to-train” corridors), behavioral economy instruments, e.g., mobility loans, micromobility vouchers, bonus tariffs transfers, visitor mobility programs for tourism or justice mechanisms: shields, targeted discounts, transparent recycling of revenues from pricing/LEZ to rapid local improvements (headways public transportation, safety at schools, pedestrian access).

It is worth noting that the most important and overriding area here is the issue of peace. Solutions should be tested in a calm, thoughtful way, given the opportunity to become acquainted, provide various types of benefits, indicate benefits, give time for adaptation, and not be implemented under the cover of fears and restrictions. The idea is based on the principle of “options-first, no ban without consent” first, education and communication based on opportunities, co-benefits (health, time, costs) and proposing alternatives, then—when there are a substitute and a social mandate—possible limitations, monitoring perceived fairness and a sense of agency. CalmMobility is also global cohesion, local flexibility. Same rules and indicators—different “policy-stacks” depending on the place; Living Labs as the default learning path (also on mistakes).

Detailed pillars are presented in Figure 3.

By doing so, it seeks to minimize psychological resistance, enhance emotional resonance, and foster genuine co-creation processes. Moreover, CalmMobility is designed as a meta-framework, capable of harmonizing diverse instruments, be they paradigms, planning models, governance frameworks, or technologies—into a coherent, user-centered transition strategy.

In practical terms, CalmMobility could serve as the following:

• A pacing and sequencing tool for sustainable mobility measures, avoiding abrupt disruptions;
• An affective framing protocol that emphasizes opportunities, shared benefits, and agency;
• A co-creation platform embedded within governance processes to ensure continuity and legitimacy;
• A cross-policy integrator linking spatial, regulatory, economic, and service-based tools.

6.1. Theoretical Framework

CalmMobility grows out of research trends presented in the literature and proposes their systemic synergy. Firstly, the concept is firmly rooted in the assumption that mobility is a socio-technical system shaped simultaneously by infrastructure, rules, technologies, and practices of everyday life [3]. This results in the need to combine spatial, service, regulatory, and economic solutions into a single implementation logic. Secondly, the idea is based on the fairness of mobility. Martens indicates a normative basis for the distribution of access and costs [28]. CalmMobility further expands on this approach to psychological safety (trust, agency), temporal justice (time to adapt), and narrative dignity (educating, avoiding moralizing, respect for experience). In other words, while Mobility Justice focuses on what access is distributed and to whom, CalmMobility asks how change is experienced and by whom. Both are necessary; neither is sufficient alone.

Next, CalmMobility draws on transformation management. A multi-level perspective [34,125] helps to grasp the paths of change, but it can be blind to the social costs of rapid implementations. CalmMobility responds to criticism of “governance by disruption” [40,120] by emphasizing adaptability instead of acceleration. CalmMobility is also about participation and co-creation. From the classical Arnstein ladder [120] to diagnoses of tokenism [127] to innovation acceptance studies [117,118]—the conclusions are consistent that legitimacy requires co-determination and affective alignment [123], not just consultation. CalmMobility responds by proposing a deeper form of engagement rooted in empathetic listening, relational trust-building, and narrative co-creation. It introduces tools such as scenario-based storytelling, emotional impact mapping, protocols to prepare consultations, and co-creation sessions.

And finally, CalmMobility is also about positioning. It is a meta-framework capable of harmonizing different policy families—paradigms, spatial models, governance frameworks, economic and regulatory instruments, service architectures (e.g., MaaS; [81])—into a coherent, user-oriented strategy. It is both global (common definitions, minimum standards, metrics) and locally modular (selection of “policy-stacks” for the port, tourist, metropolitan, peripheral) context.

A novelty of the approach is that more attention is directed to systemic activities, indicating the affective-psychological layer as a core element, and not a “soft addition” to the developed policy. The approach contributes both from a theoretical point of view, bridging the gap between mobility equity and transition theory by adding a time-affective dimension to the logic of sustainable mobility transformation. It also provides a methodological approach through a framework, a proposed framework, and a practical dimension as a standardized, global approach with the possibility of local modifications to adapt it directly to the needs of a given area.

6.2. CalmMobility Users Targets

(a)

Primary audience: Residents

CalmMobility is first and foremost designed for city residents, those who ultimately bear the costs and reap the benefits of mobility transitions in everyday life. The framework addresses three resident-centered problems that recur across reforms:

-

Disruption without credible substitutes;

-

A lack of agency in how, when, and where change arrives, and;

-

Uneven distribution of burdens and benefits.

By sequencing measures in an “options-first” manner (substitutes before restrictions), pacing implementation to allow learning and adaptation, and embedding explicit equity shields (e.g., targeted discounts, revenue recycling into local improvements, accessibility gains in underserved areas), CalmMobility reduces perceived loss of autonomy while improving safety, reliability, and proximity. Vulnerable users, including children and older adults, low-income households, people with disabilities, shift workers, and residents of peripheral districts are prioritized through quick-win packages (school-zone safety, frequent headways on essential corridors, first/last-mile completeness, safer crossings, and basic bike/parking amenities) implemented ahead of any limiting measures. Public dialogue is structured around “what we heard → what we changed,” so residents can see how input alters outcomes. In short, the framework turns transitions from something performed to residents into a process performed with them, protecting time, dignity, health, and access.

(b)

Secondary audience: Cities and metropolitan authorities

Municipal and metropolitan administrations are the second target group because they orchestrate complex portfolios—spatial reallocation, pricing and regulation, service integration, and digital infrastructures—under political and budget constraints. CalmMobility offers them a practical operating system: a shared cadence (go/adjust/stop gates), a common evaluation window for pilots, and minimum standards for participation, data, and interoperability. This reduces Policy Layering, aligns transport–planning–IT–finance workflows, and creates clarity for procurement, revenue recycling, and communications. For medium-capacity cities, the framework emphasizes low-cost measures with high visibility and short feedback cycles; for multi-jurisdictional regions, it supplies a spine for cross-border coordination and consistent indicators.

(c)

Transport operators and service providers (public and private)

Operators of public transport, shared mobility fleets, and Mobility as a Service platforms need predictability to invest and interoperate. CalmMobility establishes neutral interface rules (open data schemas, API access conditions, privacy-preserving analytics) and a sequenced rollout logic that aligns service changes with street reconfiguration, pricing instruments, and passenger information. This lowers integration risk, avoids “pilot churn,” and supports business continuity, while making room for innovation through clearly scoped sandboxes.

(d)

Local businesses and employers

Retailers, logistics providers, and major employers are directly affected by curb management, access regulations, and delivery windows. By pairing spatial changes with operational substitutes (micro-hubs, timed access, consolidation points, off-peak incentives) and by publishing revenue-recycling commitments that fund nearby benefits (e.g., safer high streets, cleaner air, reliable transit headways), CalmMobility reduces near-term disruption and helps firms adapt their operations. Employers also benefit from improved reliability of employee commutes and clearer rules for corporate mobility programs.

(e)

Civil society and community organizations

Neighborhood associations, disability advocates, youth and senior councils, and environmental groups gain a structured role in co-creation beyond one-off consultations. CalmMobility institutionalizes rotating citizen panels, small stipends for participation, transparent feedback loops, and open evidence dashboards. This broadens representation, mitigates participation fatigue, and strengthens legitimacy by ensuring that experiential knowledge informs sequencing decisions.

(f)

Political leadership and oversight bodies

Elected officials, audit institutions, and oversight committees require reforms that are effective yet governable. The framework’s reversible gates, pre-announced evaluation criteria, and visible local reinvestments create a defensible narrative of learning rather than imposition. This helps maintain cross-party support, manage polarization, and protect reforms through electoral cycles.

Placing residents first is not rhetorical; it determines design choices. Options must be visible and usable before restrictions, equity must be measurable during implementation (not only ex post), and co-decision must be genuine (not tokenistic). Cities, operators, businesses, and political leadership are then positioned as enablers of this resident-centered sequence. In practice, this ordering reduces resistance, accelerates adoption, and improves the resilience of transitions over time. The CamMobility value proposition was presented in the Figure 4.

This audience architecture ensures that CalmMobility does not add “yet another” policy label. Instead, it clarifies who the transition is for (residents), who must make it work (cities, operators, businesses), and how each actor is empowered to deliver change that is not only technically sound but also socially grounded and durable.

6.3. Boundary Conditions and Limitations

The implementation of CalmMobility is contingent upon adequate institutional capacity including cross-departmental coordination, data/ICT competences, and sustained political will. However, its application in resource-constrained contexts (small/medium cities, Global South municipalities) presents significant challenges. In such settings, the framework’s emphasis on co-creation, data standards, and pilot phases may strain limited administrative bandwidth. CalmMobility does not offer a “one-size-fits-all” toolkit, but rather a modular logic—where cities begin with the most feasible pillar in their context (e.g., “Pacing–Sequencing–Inclusion” via low-cost pilot corridors) and scale up as capacity grows.

Two critical risks require deeper scrutiny than previously acknowledged:

(1)

Participation Fatigue: Rotating citizen panels and “what we heard → what we changed” protocols are proposed to mitigate this, but their long-term effectiveness remains unproven. In contexts of low trust or high inequality, repeated consultations can breed cynicism, not engagement. CalmMobility treats these as testable hypotheses—their design, incentives (e.g., stipends), and impact on legitimacy will be rigorously evaluated in the next phase of case studies.

(2)

Political Polarization: Staging reforms and “opportunities-first” communication aim to depoliticize transitions, but deeply entrenched car culture or ideological resistance (e.g., “15-Minute City” conspiracies) may render even phased approaches contentious. The framework’s reliance on “visible local benefits” (e.g., air quality improvements, safer crossings) is a pragmatic response, but it assumes political actors will allow these benefits to be attributed to the policy. This is not guaranteed. CalmMobility’s resilience to polarization will depend on its ability to build trans-partisan coalitions—a challenge it acknowledges but cannot fully resolve alone.

However, CalmMobility in a broader context will provide a repository of cases and common metrics that will enable interested areas to implement and develop the concept. It is worth emphasizing the fact that CalmMobility remains an innovation-open concept in which interested stakeholders can propose their own solutions and expand the idea to include further sustainable mobility.

6.4. Operationalizing CalmMobility: A Conceptual Framework

While the previous sections introduced CalmMobility as a guiding vision, this section clarifies its structure as a conceptual governance meta-framework, not yet an operational tool, but a coherent architecture designed to enable effective, legitimate, and resilient mobility transitions. Its purpose is not to prescribe universal metrics or fixed implementation protocols, but to establish a shared logic of change—one that prioritizes context, co-creation, and adaptability over haste and imposition. As emphasized throughout this paper, CalmMobility is presented strictly at the conceptual level; its translation into measurable indicators, evaluation dashboards, and cross-city benchmarking tools is explicitly reserved for subsequent empirical phases of this research program.

The framework rests on four interdependent pillars—each defined not by outputs, but by process, principle, and posture:

1.

Comprehensiveness: Mapping the ecosystem before acting

Moving beyond isolated interventions to map the full ecosystem of mobility options—spatial, economic, regulatory, technological—and their potential synergies and conflicts. It requires asking: Which combinations of tools exist in this context? What synergies or conflicts might arise between them?

Core principle: Comprehensiveness is the antidote to Policy Layering. It demands diagnostic humility—refusing to deploy any tool (MaaS, LEZ, Superblock) until its fit within the local ecosystem (infrastructure, culture, data, equity) has been systematically assessed. It is not about doing everything but about understanding what can work here—and what might break if we act too soon.

2.

Pacing–sequencing–inclusion: Change as a dialogue, not a decree

Staging change through pilot phases with pre-defined “go/adjust/stop” gates, embedding co-creation, and ensuring reversibility via sunset clauses. Change must be introduced sequentially, not simultaneously, allowing time for adaptation, feedback, and learning.

Core principle: Trust is built through process. Pacing means “substitutes before restrictions.” Sequencing means visible, accessible alternatives must precede any limiting measure. Inclusion means citizens are not consulted—they are co-designers. This pillar institutionalizes the right to experiment, learn, and walk back—transforming policy from a monologue into a dialogue.

3.

Affective alignment: Framing change as opportunity, not punishment

Shifting communication from technocratic framing (“modal shift,” “emissions reduction”) to emotionally resonant narratives focused on tangible local benefits: safety, time, quietness, dignity, and agency. Policies must be framed not as restrictions, but as opportunities—and citizens must feel heard, not punished.

Core principle: People do not resist change—they resist loss. Affective alignment replaces moralizing (“you should”) with empowering (“you can gain”). It recognizes that legitimacy is won not in spreadsheets, but in hearts and lived experiences—by speaking the language of benefit, not deficit.

4.

Future-Readiness: Designing for adaptability, not perfection

Designing interventions with adaptability at their core: adopting open data standards (GTFS/GBFS), avoiding irreversible investments, building flexible financing models, and preparing scenarios for emerging technologies (e.g., automation, electrification). Infrastructure and governance must remain open to evolution.

Core principle: The only constant is change. Future-Readiness means building modular, not monolithic. It means choosing reversible pilots over permanent infrastructure, open APIs over proprietary lock-in, and scenario planning over rigid blueprints. It is the humility to admit we might be wrong—and that is okay, because we designed in the capacity to learn and adapt.

These pillars are not sequential steps but mutually reinforcing dimensions. A city cannot achieve pacing without comprehensiveness; it cannot align affectively without inclusion; it cannot be future-ready without interoperable systems. Together, they form a coherent logic for calm transformation—one that does not rush change but cultivates it.

7. Conclusions

Overall, the analysis showed that contemporary approaches to sustainable mobility create an extremely rich and diverse ecosystem of tools—from normative paradigms, through spatial models, governance frameworks, economic and regulatory instruments, to innovative service architectures. At the same time, the analysis revealed numerous recurring weaknesses: lack of a coherent rhythm and sequence of activities, fragmentation (Policy Layering, policy silo), problems with data integration and interoperability, low participation, and Affective Mismatch with the experience of residents. In addition, the lack of preparation for future challenges, such as transport automation and limited intermodality—especially in the untapped potential of water and rail transport—was highlighted. In many cases, the restrictiveness towards individual motorization was also revealed, which, without providing alternatives, leads to social resistance and the risk of reversing the introduced solutions.

The results of the analysis allow us to answer the research questions posed.

-

Q1: What structural, psychological, and governance-related barriers emerge across current sustainable mobility policies? The synthesis identifies four cross-cutting challenge types: (1) Policy Layering (governance/psychological), (2) Affective Mismatch (psychological), (3) Governance Silos (structural/governance), and (4) Future-Readiness Gap (structural). These are systemic, not approach-specific.

-

Q2: How do various mobility policies differ in terms of implementation logic, behavioral impact, and perceived legitimacy? The analysis shows differences in legitimacy (e.g., high for Superblocks post-pilot, low for Congestion Pricing without revenue recycling) are best explained by their exposure to the four universal challenges, not their inherent design.

-

Q3: How can a new conceptual framework support a more inclusive, adaptive, and psychologically sustainable mobility transition? As detailed in Section 6, CalmMobility provides a meta-framework whose four pillars directly counteract the four universal challenges, enabling existing tools to work together coherently.

-

Q4: How do the pace and sequencing of mobility policies shape their perceived legitimacy and long-term effectiveness? Pacing and sequencing are the core antidote to Policy Layering—the most pervasive challenge. CalmMobility’s “go/adjust/stop” gates and pilot-first approach institutionalize this principle.

The results of the analysis should also be related to the broader context of the development of smart cities, which are increasingly becoming a framework for the implementation of mobility policies. While digitalization, automation, and data integration have the potential to improve the efficiency and flexibility of transport systems, the study also revealed that smart city strategies often focus on the rapid implementation of technological solutions at the expense of participatory processes and social acceptance. As a result, they can lead to fragmented implementations, reinforcing inequalities and a loss of trust in public institutions. CalmMobility, as a meta-framework concept, fits into this context, offering the missing link—ensuring that smart city innovations are integrated in a sequential, transparent, and compliant way with societal expectations. Thus, the concept can be a correction to technocratic visions of smart cities, indicating that truly “smart” solutions require a balance between technological innovation and social inclusivity and affective fit.

A comparison of these results allows us to formulate a key conclusion: the problem is not the lack of solutions, but the lack of a coherent meta-management framework that would integrate existing approaches, take into account the pace and sequence of changes, and at the same time minimize psychological resistance and strengthen the sense of social agency. It was this gap that became the basis for the development of a new concept—CalmMobility.

To sum up, CalmMobility is a proposal for a systemic, calm approach to mobility transformation, which is not about rejecting the existing tools, but about merging them into one coherent ecosystem. He points out that the key to success is the harmonization of various policies, the staging of changes, the possibility of their reversibility, as well as deep, real cooperation with residents. In this way, the mobility of the future can not only be technically sustainable, but also socially acceptable, affectively adapted, and resistant to the changing political and institutional context. In short, CalmMobility is not a rejection of existing approaches but a synthesis and optimization of their strengths. It aims to ensure that sustainability transitions in mobility are not only technically and environmentally sound, but also socially grounded, emotionally acceptable, and resilient over time. The results of this study thus provide both the diagnosis of current barriers and the rationale for introducing a new paradigm capable of transforming fragmented, high-speed policy landscapes into cohesive, adaptive, and genuinely just mobility systems. The CalmMobility approach offers a pathway toward achieving this balance, potentially transforming fragmented, high-speed, and often contested policy environments into cohesive, adaptive, and just mobility ecosystems.

Future studies will detail the procedural steps of the method, including practical guidelines for pacing, sequencing, and adaptive implementation across different urban contexts. Extensions of the framework will also focus on integrating domain-specific tools, such as digital participation platforms, behavioral economics instruments, and Living Lab protocols, to test its applicability in practice. Particular attention will be given to tailoring the framework to different city types—metropolitan regions, medium-sized cities, and smaller localities—demonstrating how CalmMobility can flexibly support diverse socio-economic and spatial conditions. In addition, explainable Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) could be employed to empirically benchmark different mobility policies [130] against the CalmMobility framework, identifying efficiency gaps and clarifying which structural, psychological, or governance barriers most strongly affect implementation outcomes.