Integrating Sustainable City Branding and Transport Planning: From Framework to Roadmap for Urban Sustainability

Abstract

As global urbanization accelerates, cities increasingly shape economic growth and environmental outcomes, making sustainable urban and transport planning critical. Sustainable city branding (SCB) is emerging as a strategic tool that not only enhances a city’s global competitiveness but actively drives urban sustainability by integrating environmental, social, and economic dimensions aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, the direct link between SCB and transport planning remains largely unexplored, limiting actionable policy. This study introduces a novel conceptual framework connecting SCB with transport planning, positioning public transportation as a key lever for sustainable urban development. It identifies core interactions between city branding and sustainable mobility, proposes methodologies to evaluate SCB effectiveness, and addresses potential risks, challenges, and research gaps. A policy roadmap for decision-makers based on the framework is outlined. This roadmap is structured into three phases spanning a five-year program. In Phase 1, cities should lay the foundation by integrating SCB into municipal transport and sustainability plans and establishing measurable indicators aligned with the SDGs. Phase 2 focuses on engagement and experimentation, encouraging the creation of participatory branding platforms and the implementation of pilot projects, such as green mobility corridors or climate-resilient transit hubs. Finally, Phase 3 emphasizes monitoring and scaling, utilizing digital technologies for real-time tracking, evaluating pilot outcomes, and expanding successful initiatives based on key performance indicators, including ridership growth, carbon reduction, and citizen engagement. By linking SCB explicitly to transport planning and providing a concrete roadmap, this study offers a unique contribution to both urban sustainability research and practical policy-making, enabling cities to simultaneously strengthen their brand, enhance mobility, and achieve measurable sustainability outcomes.

1. Introduction

According to the United Nations (UN), 68% of the global population is projected to live in urban areas by 2050, reflecting a rapid shift from rural to urban living [1]. This growth highlights cities as both engines of economic, technological, and cultural development and as major sources of environmental stress, facing challenges such as infrastructure demands, traffic congestion, and resource depletion. Mega-cities like Tokyo, Delhi, Shanghai, Dhaka, Cairo, São Paulo, and Mexico City, each with populations exceeding 20 million, exemplify these pressures while also presenting opportunities for innovation, connectivity, and regional growth. As urban populations increase, cities face mounting environmental challenges, including resource depletion, noise and air pollution, and lack of green spaces. Urban areas currently consume nearly 75% of global energy and account for 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with these figures expected to rise [2].

Beyond their demographic scale, many cities play crucial roles in the global economy, as captured by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network (GaWC). GaWC ranks cities based on their integration in global advanced services, from Alpha++ to Gamma [3], using sectors like finance, law, management consultancy, and advertising as indicators. Rising urban density presents both challenges and opportunities for city branding, as cities leverage their economic roles to shape global identities through sustainability narratives, climate leadership, and green infrastructure innovation.

Rising urban density presents both challenges and opportunities for city branding, as cities leverage their economic roles to shape global identities through sustainability narratives, climate leadership, and green infrastructure innovation. According to The Brundtland Report, “Our Common Future” [3], a sustainable city is one that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to encounter theirs, by balancing the three core pillars of sustainability: environmental stewardship, economic viability, and social equity. These principles come from the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework proposed by [4,5], commonly referred to as the three “P’s”—people, planet, and profit—a model that established the foundation for balancing social equity, environmental responsibility, and economic viability. Incorporating resilience into TBL enhances the ability of cities, businesses, and organizations to pursue sustainable development in the face of growing uncertainty and risk. Resilience for sustainable cities means that they must also possess the capacity to absorb, adapt to, and recover from a wide range of shocks and stresses, including climate events, pandemics, economic disruptions, and natural disasters [6], while continuing to deliver essential services and maintain quality of life for their residents. The core features of resilient and sustainable cities include social innovation, efficient use of energy and resources, inclusive governance with participatory planning, access to green spaces and clean air, low-carbon and climate-adaptive infrastructure, strong social cohesion, and vibrant local economies [7,8,9,10].

This evolution culminated in the adoption of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals by the United Nations in 2015 [11], which expanded the Brundtland vision into a concrete framework of global priorities, covering the five dimensions of People, Planet, Prosperity, Partnership, and Peace. Unlike earlier models, the SDGs provide measurable targets and indicators, enabling countries and organizations to track progress and align policy with global sustainability commitments [11].

In an effort to evaluate and rank cities based on their sustainability performance, the Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index was developed. While the TBL traditionally considers three core pillars (People, Planet and Profit or Prosperity), Arcadis [12] recognized the need for a more dynamic and forward-looking framework. To address this, a fourth pillar, Progress, was recently introduced. This new dimension highlights a city’s capacity for innovation, adaptability, and effective policy implementation, emphasizing not only current performance, but also the effectiveness of its transition toward long-term sustainability. Together, the four pillars (People, Planet, Profit, and Progress) offer a more holistic and future-oriented assessment of urban sustainability, aligned with the ambition of fully embracing the 17 SDGs. According to the Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index 2024 [12] the top three sustainable cities in the world are European: Amsterdam exceled in renewable energy adoption, social equity, and economic resilience, securing top positions in both the profit and progress pillars; Rotterdam recognized for its effective waste management and CO₂ reduction initiatives; and Copenhagen, for its ambitious carbon-neutral goals and extensive cycling infrastructure

These high-performing cities also exemplify the power of sustainable city branding (SCB), a strategic approach that connects a city’s identity and values with its long-term goals in transportation, environmental planning and economic development. By embedding sustainability into their brand narratives, cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Copenhagen not only enhance their global appeal but also drive local outcomes, attracting investment, tourism, and civic engagement. In this way, sustainable branding serves both as a reflection of a city’s progress and as a catalyst for ongoing transformation. However, while urban planning and city branding often pursue overlapping objectives, the practical integration between the two remains underdeveloped, particularly in the context of sustainability [13]. Despite the increasing emphasis on green infrastructures, low-carbon mobility, and climate adaptation in planning processes, sustainable branding efforts are not always fully coordinated with these initiatives. One of the most critical areas where this alignment is essential is in transportation planning. It is clear that the relationship between transportation planning, sustainable city branding, and the promotion of public transit plays a crucial role in shaping the future of urban sustainability. Cities that effectively integrate sustainable mobility solutions, such as cycling infrastructure, low-emission transit systems, and walkable urban design, can reduce their environmental impact and additionally reinforce their brand as livable, forward-thinking, and climate-conscious. When transportation initiatives are coherently aligned with branding narratives, they can significantly amplify both perceived and actual sustainability outcomes. As such, the interplay among transportation planning, city branding, and public transit promotion forms a synergistic approach to creating more sustainable and resilient urban environments.

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the synergy between transport planning and sustainable city branding may be a positive tool [14,15] not only in optimizing transportation system [16,17] but also in shaping how cities are perceived, both by residents and the global community. AI technologies and digital twins, which are virtual replicas of urban environments, are transforming how cities plan, operate, and present themselves. These tools allow decision-makers and citizens to visualize the impact of infrastructure and policy changes, helping to improve sustainability, safety, and overall quality of life [18,19]. At the same time, they support strategic city branding, enabling urban centers to position themselves as forward-thinking, resilient, and environmentally conscious. In particular, AI excels at analyzing vast and varied datasets, including inputs from social media, mobility apps, and public feedback platforms. Through techniques like natural language processing and sentiment analysis, cities can monitor public perceptions of transport initiatives and infrastructure developments, using these insights to craft targeted, inclusive branding strategies that resonate with diverse communities [20,21]. Digital twins enhance this process by allowing planners to simulate traffic flows, evaluate environmental impacts, and test different scenarios before implementation, leading to smarter, more sustainable decisions. By integrating real-time data from sensors, mobility networks, and environmental systems, digital twins also help reduce congestion and emissions while improving the efficiency of urban transport [19,22]. When AI and digital twins are aligned with transport planning and city branding, they enable urban leaders to build not just functional systems, but intelligent, adaptive ecosystems. These technologies allow cities to communicate their values and climate goals through a compelling, data-driven narrative, making mobility smarter while telling a richer, more meaningful story.

The main aim of this paper is to explore the interrelationship between transportation planning, sustainable city branding, and the promotion of public transportation as key drivers of urban sustainability and to propose a conceptual framework and roadmap that integrates transport planning and SCB as a pathway to fostering sustainable urban development.

This study is guided by the following research questions:

RQ1. How can transportation planning, when aligned with sustainable city branding, act as a powerful driver for promoting public transportation and enhancing urban sustainability?

RQ2. Which methodologies are most appropriate for evaluating the effectiveness of sustainable city branding within the context of transportation planning?

RQ3. Which challenges and risks might cities face when adopting sustainable city branding strategies?

To address RQ1, this paper proposes a conceptual framework and roadmap that integrates key elements from transport planning, sustainable city branding, and participatory governance. The framework aims to illustrate how branding can be strategically aligned with mobility initiatives to foster a shift toward more inclusive, low-carbon, and efficient urban transport. By mapping the interactions between key constructs, processes, and outcomes, the framework provides a structured lens to understand how cities can leverage branding not merely as a promotional tool, but also as a transformative governance approach that supports long-term urban sustainability. Moreover, the conceptual model also establishes the groundwork for answering RQ2 and RQ3.

2. Methodology for the Conceptual Framework

This study employs a theory-building methodology to develop a conceptual framework that explores the integration of transport planning and SCB as a strategic pathway toward fostering sustainable urban development. Given the exploratory and interdisciplinary nature of the research problem, a conceptual and synthesis-oriented approach was deemed appropriate for synthesizing knowledge across fields and constructing a framework that captures the complexity and multidimensionality of SCB within transport planning. The methodology unfolds in several stages as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Methodology for conceptual framework and roadmap integrating sustainable city branding and transport planning.

The process started with a systematic literature review that was conducted across peer-reviewed journals, books, and policy reports to identify the key concepts related to city branding and sustainable transport planning. Databases, mainly as Scopus, Web of Science were used with keywords including: (“sustainable city branding”) AND (“urban mobility”) AND (“transport planning”) AND (“citizen participation”) AND (“sustainable development goals” OR “SDGs”) AND (“urban policies”). The inclusion criteria prioritized publications from the last 10 years (89% of the 88 publications), with a particular emphasis on interdisciplinary studies that bridge urban planning and sustainability.

Following the literature review, a thematic coding process was applied to analyze and synthesize the extracted sources. This involved identifying and comparing recurring concepts and theoretical contributions from diverse disciplines, including marketing, transport engineering, and sustainability policy. These concepts were then grouped into higher-order thematic categories, enabling the framework to emerge organically from interdisciplinary patterns observed across the literature. Each thematic cluster, such as stakeholder engagement, governance mechanisms, branding narratives, and mobility integration, was subsequently translated into a corresponding component within the visual model, forming the foundation of the framework’s three main dimensions as presented in Section 4. The analysis led to the identification of three core dimensions that structure the conceptual framework: (1) key constructs, (2) processes, and (3) outcomes. This structure reflects the interdependence between branding practices, governance and policy mechanisms, and mobility planning. The proposed framework emphasizes how SCB operates not only as a communication strategy but as a multi-actor governance process embedded within sustainable transport systems founded in TBL. This research is conceptual in nature thus it does not include empirical data, sample cities, or comparative analysis. The study focuses on the conceptual integration of ideas across disciplines to lay the groundwork for subsequent empirical testing. The framework and roadmapare designed as a precursor to data-driven research. The next phase of research will operationalize the framework through comparative case studies of selected cities differing in scale, governance, and mobility strategies. These empirical applications through the proposed roadmap will serve to validate and refine the framework, assessing its explanatory power and practical relevance for policy and planning contexts. By first establishing conceptual clarity, the study avoids premature empirical generalizations and ensures that future applications, such as surveys, cross-city comparisons, or mixed-method evaluations are grounded in a coherent theoretical model.

3. Theorical Background on Sustainable City Branding

3.1. Introduction to Place and City Branding

Place branding refers to the strategic process of shaping and promoting the identity of geographic locations of all scales, such as nations, regions, or cities [23]. Within this broader concept, city branding concentrates specifically on urban areas, emphasizing distinctive urban assets like infrastructure, cultural heritage, quality of life, and innovation to differentiate cities and enhance their attractiveness. Place and city branding emerged in response to growing competition among cities striving to attract tourists, investors, residents, and other forms of capital. According to [24] place branding can generally be categorized into three main approaches: symbolic, cognitive, and experiential. The symbolic perspective, as discussed by [25], emphasizes the use of symbols that hold specific meaning for various stakeholder groups. Logos, slogans, and visual elements communicate values and intentions, reinforcing collective identity and recognition. The cognitive approach, initiated by the work of Keller [26] focuses on the images and associations formed in individuals’ minds. It treats place branding as a mental map of perceptions, where reputation, familiarity, and emotional connections are shaped by accumulated knowledge and impressions. The approach is a more recent perspective and highlights multi-sensory place experiences, where the brand is not only a set of ideas but also an embodied and emotional interaction with the city. It suggests that places are felt through sights, sounds, smells, and physical engagement, making branding a holistic and lived experience. Contemporary place branding theories increasingly integrate symbolic, cognitive, and experiential approaches to offer a more comprehensive understanding of how place brands are formed and perceived [24]. Some of those theories are i. place branding theory, ii. brand anthropomorphism, iii. brand experience theory and iv. city branding and brand purpose.

3.2. Evolution Toward Sustainable City Branding (SCB)

Sustainable city branding is a subset of the broader concept of place branding (Figure 2) representing a more integrated and holistic approach [27], by reflecting urban policies that aim to balance economic growth with social equity and environmental responsibility, positioning the city not only as a competitive destination but also as a livable, inclusive, and future-oriented place for its citizens.

Figure 2. Sustainable city branding in place branding context.

As cities attempt to become more resilient and sustainable in the face of growing global challenges, sustainable city branding, a branch of place branding, has become increasingly vital. A well-articulated sustainable city brand can attract investment, talent, tourism, and partnerships that support green infrastructure, inclusive governance, and innovation [28]. Moreover, it can unify diverse stakeholders around a shared vision of sustainability and resilience. By effectively communicating their values, commitments, and unique strengths, cities can build trust, encourage civic engagement, and position themselves as leaders in achieving the objectives of Sustainable Development Goal 11: to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable

Far beyond traditional marketing, SCB serves as a strategic alignment tool, helping to unify public policies, attract sustainable investment and responsible tourism, foster citizen engagement, and reinforce the city’s identity on the international stage. The brand of a sustainable city transcends logos, slogans, or visual aesthetics. Instead, it encapsulates a collective urban identity, grounded in shared values and long-term commitments to environmental protection, social justice, and economic resilience [29]. A credible and compelling brand communicates the city’s purpose and direction, builds trust among internal and external stakeholders, and mobilizes support for transformative urban agendas [30].

3.3. Core Dimensions of SCB

The literature highlights several key dimensions that form the foundation of successful SCB, translating sustainability principles into concrete branding practices. The key elements of a sustainable city brand are authenticity [31,32,33], civic participation [33,34,35,36], cross-sector integration, coherence and long-term vision [32,37] and equity and inclusiveness [38,39,40,41,42].

Authentic branding emerges from transparent governance and consistent urban practices avoiding the reputational risks associated with greenwashing [43]. For instance, a city claiming climate leadership should back this with data on emissions reduction, renewable energy use, or climate-adaptive infrastructure. When city branding is authentic, local residents are more likely to engage in word-of-mouth promotion, proudly sharing and supporting their city’s image [44]. Benedetti et al. [31] examine the political dimensions of authenticity in place branding, analyzing how cities construct and negotiate their authentic identities. Similarly, Wang [33] investigates stakeholders’ perceptions of green city branding, emphasizing the role of authenticity in fostering public trust and engagement.

Building on these themes, Ripoll Gonzallez and Gale [32] assess whether integrating a sustainability narrative into city branding and urban development strategies fosters more inclusive governance and a more pluralistic approach to creating sustainability value. Their study, grounded in the triple bottom line framework of the United Nations’ SDGs, uses New York as a case study to explore the broader implications for urban sustainability and city branding.

The success and legitimacy of a sustainable city brand rely heavily on the active involvement of citizens. The brand narrative should include the residents’ experiences and aspirations, enhancing local ownership and long-term support [45]. Berntzen and Johannessen [34] examine the role of citizen participation in the development of smart cities through literature and example cases from Norwegian cities. The authors consider three different categories of participation: citizen competence and experience, data collection through citizens’ use of technology and participation as democratic value offering insights into how civic engagement can enhance the sustainability and authenticity of city brands. In Joo and Seo study [36], the authors explore how Seoul’s participatory branding initiatives have facilitated policy changes by actively involving citizens in the branding process. Their study highlights the critical role of civic involvement in developing city brands that are both authentic and sustainable. Wang [33] explore green city branding by empirically exploring, a survey, using the sample case of Yilan County in Taiwan, the green city brand perceptions of multiple stakeholders based on associative network theory. The findings highlight the importance of incorporating civic participation to ensure the authenticity and sustainability of city brands. Ginesta et al. [35] study the role of the city council in a place branding campaign in Vic, Catalonia, concluding that the processes of conceptualization and implementation of new place brands must be framed within a bottom-up approach, integrating all the stakeholders (public–private cooperation) in the decision-making process.

Also, effective brand management in sustainable cities requires the alignment of diverse sectors, such as urban planning, transportation, environmental policy, education, culture, and digital governance, under a cohesive sustainability narrative. This integrated approach helps to deliver a consistent brand experience, both physically and digitally, reinforcing the city’s message across all points of interaction with citizens, businesses, and visitors [32]. For example, promoting low-carbon mobility should be reflected not just in policy, but also in city design, infrastructure investments, and communication platforms. The sustainability narrative should evolve over time; however, it remains anchored in a long-term vision for sustainability, guiding policy choices and signaling commitment to external audiences, such as international partners, investors, and development agencies. Ripoll Gonzallez and Gale [32] study how cities incorporate sustainability into their branding narratives, discussing the necessity of cross-sector integration, including collaboration between government, business, and civil society, to ensure that city branding efforts genuinely reflect sustainable development goals. Juarez et al. [37] highlights the importance of integrating various sectors, including urban planning, infrastructure, and community engagement, to create a unified and sustainable city brand.

Regarding equity and inclusiveness, inclusive branding aims to ensure that the city’s image reflects and respects the diversity of its population, and actively promotes equity and accessibility. Brand equity (BE) is a crucial factor in achieving competitive advantage, enabling differentiation and long-term success in the marketplace [41]. Among all the BE views, the most mentioned in the literature is consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) defined as “a set of perceptions, attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors on the part of consumers that results in increased utility and allows a brand to earn greater volume or greater margins than it could without the brand name” [46]. In terms of inclusion, Paganoni [41] investigates how city branding can incorporate social inclusion, focusing on the representation of multicultural and migrant communities. The author also examines the role of digital platforms in enhancing civic participation and inclusivity in city branding efforts. Bisani et al. [38] explore the legitimacy and inclusivity in branding practices, analyzing contrasting approaches by industry stakeholders and voluntary organizations in terms of representation, engagement, and co-creation, highlighting the importance of community leadership in fostering inclusive branding. Lemmetyinen et al. [40] analyzes the incorporation of inclusivity in ten European cities into their place branding strategies. This research discusses the role of social bonding, community engagement, and participatory planning in creating authentic and sustainable city brands.

The field of SCB has attracted growing academic interest, highlighting the rising significance of branding strategies that integrate both cultural and environmental sustainability.

3.4. Applications and Studies in Sustainable City Branding

Beyond theory, numerous studies have examined how sustainability principles are implemented in real-world city branding strategies. A comprehensive overview of how cities can strategically manage their reputations to reflect achievements and ambitions in environmental, social, and economic development is presented in [27].

Focusing on the concepts of green and sustainable city branding, a study [44] present a literature review of 32 academic studies having as objective to explore how these terms are conceptualized and applied in academic and practical context. Another interesting paper [47], show how the slow city philosophy can serve as a model for sustainable urban branding in Turkey. The slow city or cittaslow emerged as a response to globalization’s devastating effects, particularly to small cities’ local economies and the fast-paced and homogenized lifestyle in urban areas [48] and in study [47] it is said that Cittaslow offers a holistic approach to city branding that emphasizes local identity, environmental stewardship, and quality of life. In terms of practical applications, Ripoll Gonzallez and Gale [32] critically studies how cities, particularly New York City, integrate sustainability into their branding and urban development strategies. The study assesses whether these narratives lead to more inclusive governance and a broader conception of value, aligning with the SDGs. The authors [32] found out that despite claims of sustainability, NYC’s urban development and branding narratives predominantly interpret “value” in terms of economic exchange, prioritizing growth over social and environmental considerations. Also they recognize that the processes behind city branding and urban development remain hierarchical, with insufficient participatory engagement from diverse stakeholders, including residents and community groups and propose an approach that incorporates the four dimensions of value (exchange, use, labor, and function) to foster a more holistic and inclusive understanding of sustainability in urban development [32]. Other authors [49] examines how Komotini, a city in northeastern Greece with a rich history of cultural diversity, can leverage its multicultural identity for sustainable urban development and effective city branding. They emphasize that, when managed inclusively, multiculturalism can serve as a powerful driver of urban transformation. The study [49] recommend a city branding strategy that showcases the city’s everyday multicultural coexistence, ensuring its diverse heritage is both celebrated and strategically leveraged to foster economic and social advancement. Recently, Ciucukescuand and Luca [50] explore strategies for crafting a culturally rich and sustainable city brand in Brașov, Romania, emphasizing the importance of integrating local cultural heritage and engaging teens, young adults (Generation Z) into the branding process to ensure authenticity and long-term sustainability. Still, regarding Generation Z consumers, other study [51] addresses the disconnect between government-led city branding initiatives and Generation Z consumers by proposing a city branding model specifically designed to engage younger audiences. The authors analyzed ten official city branding YouTube videos released after 2014, alongside insights from four focus groups consisting of 21 university students aged 18–24, all either born in Hong Kong or long-term residents. The research highlights that successful city branding for Generation Z must emphasize authenticity, digital engagement, sustainability, inclusivity, and memorable experiences. Aligning branding strategies with these core values can foster stronger emotional and cultural connections between cities and younger generations. A very interesting study is presented in [52] where the complex relationship between a city’s self-presentation as inclusive and its actual inclusive practices is explored. In this study, the authors propose a typology that categorizes cities based on their level of inclusion and degree of branding, supplemented by an analysis of branding practices and identities.

4. Framework for Sustainable City Branding Applied to Transport Planning

Sustainable city branding is shaped by the integration of three core dimensions, aligned with the Triple Bottom Line approach. The environmental sustainability emphasizes green infrastructure, renewable energy, sustainable mobility, and ecological preservation as core elements of the city’s identity; the social sustainability focuses on inclusivity, equity, community engagement, and cultural authenticity to ensure that branding resonates with diverse stakeholders; and finally the economic sustainability promotes innovation, green entrepreneurship, and long-term economic resilience without compromising environmental or social goals [4,5]. Sustainable transport elements, such as green transit corridors, solar-powered bus stops, or car-free zones, function as practical infrastructure while simultaneously serving as visual and experiential representations of the city’s sustainable identity. Moreover, messaging from distinct transport modes (e.g., signage in bike-share programs or eco-branding on electric buses) reinforces core values like low-carbon living, inclusivity, and public health [53].

Based on the literature review, a conceptual framework for sustainable city branding to be applied to transport planning is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Conceptual framework for sustainable city branding to be applied to transport planning.

This framework is structured around interconnected layers that illustrate how branding, planning, and governance processes interact to promote sustainable mobility. The visual model is grounded in the three core sustainability dimensions: social, environmental and economic which serve as the foundation for the three processes: identity negotiation, brand construction and trust building. The key constructs that support these processes include authenticity, stakeholder engagement, governance, and narrative framing, all of which collectively contribute to achieving the SCB outputs. These constructs ensure that SCB strengthens the city’s reputation, generates sustainable value, and promotes inclusive governance, thereby fulfilling the core sustainability dimensions that underpin the model. In the context of transport planning, the key elements of SCB involve ensuring authenticity in the city’s vision and identity, while actively engaging citizens, businesses, government agencies, and other stakeholders in the co-creation of sustainable mobility strategies. Central to this participatory approach is the integration of citizen science, where residents contribute data, observations, and insights on mobility patterns, traffic conditions, air quality, and other transport-related issues. This participatory approach is essential to designing transport systems that truly reflect the needs, values, and aspirations of the community. Transport planning in SCB also relies on strong institutional structures and policy frameworks that promote transparent, inclusive, and participatory decision-making processes. A cohesive and consistent narrative that highlights the city’s commitment to sustainable mobility, emphasizing walkability, public transit, cycling infrastructure, and reduced car dependency, is crucial to reinforcing the city’s brand both locally and globally [33]. This narrative is communicated through multiple platforms including digital media, public signage, and international marketing, ensuring broad reach and visibility [32]. Public participation and engagement are key in planning as well in branding transportation initiatives. Co-creation activities such as community events, citizen surveys, and participatory workshops increase residents’ sense of ownership and pride in sustainable transport systems, thereby fostering deeper emotional and social ties to the city’s brand [42]. Ultimately, embedding these principles into transport planning not only enhances the functionality of urban mobility systems but also strengthens the city’s brand as a livable, forward-thinking, and sustainable urban space.

These practices illustrate that the processes of SCB in the context of transport planning encompass three interrelated dimensions: brand construction, identity negotiation, and trust building. Brand construction involves deliberately shaping a city’s sustainable mobility identity through integrated planning, design, and communication strategies. This includes the development of infrastructure that prioritizes public transit, cycling, walkability, and low-emission vehicles, alongside visual and narrative elements that communicate the city’s commitment to green, efficient, and people-centered mobility. The negotiation of identity refers to the ongoing, inclusive dialogue among stakeholders, such as urban planners, transport authorities, citizens, private mobility providers, and advocacy groups, to reconcile diverse and sometimes competing interests. Through participatory workshops, public consultations, and citizen science initiatives, a shared vision of sustainable transport can emerge that reflects both expert knowledge and community values. Lastly, trust building is essential for legitimizing the SCB process and ensuring long-term support. This requires consistent alignment between branding messages and the visible improvements in transport systems. Transparency in decision-making, regular reporting on progress, and the visible inclusion of community input foster credibility and reinforce the perception of the city as authentically committed to sustainable transport. Together, these processes ensure that the city’s transport identity is not only strategically crafted but also socially grounded and resilient over time.

The outcomes of SCB in the field of transport planning are multifaceted, influencing not only the design of mobility systems, but also the institutional and cultural frameworks that shape urban development [32]. A significant outcome is the advancement of inclusive governance, where participatory branding and planning processes democratize urban transport policy. By engaging a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including marginalized communities, cycling advocates, transit users, mobility service providers, and city planners, SCB enables the co-creation of transport solutions that reflect diverse needs and shared values [42]. This inclusive approach ensures that decisions are more equitable, context-aware, and socially legitimate. SCB also fosters a pluralistic sustainability value in transport planning, where sustainability is not treated as a one-size-fits-all concept but a multifaceted concept that can be tailored to local conditions [32]. This means balancing ecological concerns (e.g., reducing emissions through electric bus fleets or car-free zones), social equity (e.g., improving transit access for underserved neighborhoods), and economic viability (e.g., supporting efficient logistics and commuting for local businesses). By integrating these dimensions, cities create a more holistic and adaptive transport ecosystem. Furthermore, SCB enhances the city’s reputation by projecting a compelling and credible image of sustainable mobility [33]. Over time, this strengthened reputation not only supports economic development but also reinforces residents’ sense of civic pride and alignment with the city’s long-term sustainability goals.

Implementing SCB within transportation planning requires a set of strategic and practical actions that both communicate a city’s commitment to sustainability and enhance its urban identity and attractiveness [32]. These include: 1. highlighting green infrastructure projects to demonstrate environmental resilience and promote public awareness, while also supporting policy development and encouraging the wider adoption of eco-friendly practices [28]; 2. showcasing local success stories, such as sustainable businesses, community initiatives, and green startups, to can create emotional connections and trust through human-centered storytelling that aligns with the city’s values [44]; 3. utilizing international rankings, like [12] ranking and defining new certifications, to be included in promotional material to build credibility and global recognition; 4. considering citizens and local stakeholders’ engagement through participatory events, co-designed city slogans, and social media campaigns strengthens authenticity and community ownership of the brand [42]; and 5. integrating digital tools and smart technologies to highlight innovation and reinforce the city’s commitment to sustainability [17].

Based on the review of recent literature, several transportation initiatives have emerged as effective examples of integrating sustainable practices into urban mobility systems. Among others, Table 1 indicates some of examples, illustrating how those actions impact sustainable city branding.

Table 1. Impact on sustainable city branding of transportation projects.

Project Type	Impact on Sustainable City Branding
1a. Electrification of railway networks	Visually reinforce the city’s image as environmentally responsible and nature-integrated; create photo-friendly
1b. Green rail corridors	Demonstrate commitment to reducing carbon emissions
1c. Solar-powered railway stations	Showcases technological innovation and renewable energy leadership, appealing to green investors
1d. Regenerative braking systems in trains/metros/trams	Positions the city as energy-efficient
1e. Sustainable station design with green roofs and walls	Emphasizes user-centric, climate-conscious design that strengthens the city’s image as progressive and people-focused, while visibly demonstrating a commitment to green urban aesthetics and climate resilience
1f. Stormwater management systems	Underlines resilience and climate adaptation are important in cities that market themselves as prepared for future environmental challenges
1g. Use of recycled and sustainable materials	Conveys environmental responsibility and innovation in construction, enhancing the credibility of a city’s green brand
1h. adaptive reuse of rail and road infrastructures	Narrates a story of heritage preservation, urban regeneration, and the principles of a circular economy
2a. Intelligent traffic management systems (ITMS) using sensors and AI to optimize traffic light timings and reduce congestion	Positions the city as innovative and efficient in managing urban mobility and sustainability
2b. Electric vehicle charging Infrastructure	Reinforces a city’s identity as clean energy-oriented
2c. Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) platforms	Elevates the city’s status as a smart city, focusing on seamless, eco-friendly transportation solutions
2d. Smart parking solutions to provide real-time availability of parking spaces and guide drivers to the nearest open spot	Enhances the city’s image as a tech-savvy and environmentally conscious urban hub
2e. Bike and car sharing programs	Projects the city as innovative, with a focus on shared mobility and sustainable transport options
2f. Smart streetlights with environmental sensors	Reinforces the city’s reputation as an environmentally conscious, smart, and sustainable place

The actions listed in Table 1 are derived from the flagship initiatives outlined in the European Commission’s Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy [54], including: Flagship 1—boosting the uptake of zero-emission vehicles, renewable and low-carbon fuels, and related infrastructure; Flagship 2—creating zero-emission airports and ports; Flagship 3—making interurban and urban mobility more sustainable and healthy; Flagship 4—greening freight transport; Flagship 5—pricing carbon and providing better incentives for users; Flagship 6—making connected and automated multimodal mobility a reality; and Flagship 8 reinforcing the single market by investments by businesses in more sustainable and digital mobility.

5. Evaluation of Sustainable City Branding Performance

After the establishment of a SCB, its performance should be monitored using global key performance indicators (yet to be standardized). These may include resident satisfaction, levels of green investment, and core urban sustainability metrics, enabling cities to assess both branding effectiveness and actual progress toward sustainability targets. Global city brand indicators aim to measure and compare the sustainability performance of cities by aggregating data from multiple relevant indicators into a single score or ranking. These resources can help cities understand how they are perceived, how effectively their branding strategies align with their identity and goals, and how they compare to other urban centers on key indicators. Although there is no single universal standard to assess city branding, there exist some indices, and guidelines that can support the evaluation benchmark of a city brand performance. Some of them are Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index [55], the Green City Index and Sustainable Cities Index according to ISO 3712 [56], ISO 37122 [57] and ISO 37123 [58]. The Green City Index, developed by Siemens and the Economist Intelligence Unit, evaluates environmental performance, making it especially relevant for cities that promote eco-friendly or climate-resilient identities [59]. International standards like ISO 37101 [60], ISO 37120 [56], ISO 37122 [57], ISO 37123 [58] provide structured sets of indicators for sustainable development, quality of urban life, and smart city capabilities. The indicators according to ISO standards are defined in [57] for smart cities and in [58] for resilient cities and consider several dimensions such as: economy, education, energy, finance, governance, health, population and social conditions, recreation, safety, solid waste, telecommunication, transportation, urban/local agriculture and food safety, urban planning, wastewater, water and environmental, climate change, sport and culture for smart cities. Although these are not branding tools per se, they serve as critical evidence-based foundations that can enhance the credibility and authenticity of a city’s brand, especially when that brand emphasizes resilience, inclusiveness, or innovation. Mostly research gives more emphasis on city brand evaluation [61,62,63], than on SCB. Zheng [63] adopts a computational social science approach to evaluate and compare city brand attention, positivity, and influence across ten Alpha+ global cities identified by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network (GaWC). The study integrates cognitive and affective theoretical perspectives with the Anholt global city brand dimension framework, utilizing big data from Google’s Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT) and employing word-embedding semantic mining and clustering analysis. The study finds that city brand attention is more crucial than city brand positivity in enhancing a city’s global brand influence. Florek et al. [61] adopted a process-oriented approach to measuring city brand effectiveness, developing a system that evaluates both branding outcomes as well as the stages of the branding process and the structure of city brand strategy documents. The system is designed to assess various types of brand-related activities that produce diverse outcomes over different timeframes. The study of Florek et al. [61] also includes a comprehensive set of indicators that city managers can use to evaluate the effectiveness of their branding initiatives.

Considering the sustainability dimension, Mori and Christodoulou [64] provide a comprehensive review of relevant sustainability indices and indicators, discussing the requirements for a City Sustainability Index (CSI) and review the existing major sustainability indices/indicators: Ecological Footprint (EF), Environmental Performance Index (EPI) Dashboard of Sustainability (DS), Welfare Index, Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, City Development Index, emergy/exergy, Human Development Index (HDI), Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI), Environmental Policy Index (EPI), Living Planet Index (LPI), Environmentally adjusted Domestic Product (EDP), Genuine Saving (GS), and some applications of composite indices or/and multivariate indicators to local or regional context as case studies. More recently, the intersection of city branding and sustainability has been explored [62], often integrating sustainability metrics into broader city brand evaluation. In this study [62], the authors examine the impact of urban sustainability assessment tools, specifically the YeS-TR framework developed in Turkey, on city branding. The study discusses how these tools provide a systematic and holistic approach to evaluating cities’ adherence to sustainable development principles and their resilience to climate change. By analyzing the effects of such assessment tools, the research underscores their role in shaping a city’s brand identity and enhancing its competitiveness globally. Zhuang et al. [65] developed a city brand evaluation framework aligned with the United Nations SDG. Using the Delphi method and content validity ratio, the study proposed a comprehensive evaluation system covering key sustainability dimensions: economy, society, environment, and governance. The framework includes ten core components of city branding, such as public services, cultural heritage, inclusiveness, symbolic value, ecological quality, livability, economic strength, safety, government reputation, and civic activities, supported by 31 specific indicators. The results demonstrate strong alignment with global sustainability objectives, providing a scientific foundation for promoting the sustainable development of city brands. An important model worth highlighting is IMACLIM-R [66] developed by the Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement (CIRED) in France. This model simulates the evolution of the global economy and energy systems from 2001 to 2010, with a particular focus on evaluating sustainable development pathways and the feasibility of low-carbon transitions.

These diverse frameworks and indicators, though varying in scope and methodological orientation, collectively highlight the growing recognition of the need for robust, evidence-based tools to assess and guide the effectiveness of sustainable city branding. As cities increasingly align their branding strategies with sustainability goals, the integration of standardized performance metrics will be essential not only for ensuring credibility and transparency but also for fostering global comparability, continuous improvement, and long-term impact.

6. Contribution and Novelty

To translate the framework proposed in Section 4 into practice, a concrete policy roadmap for decision-makers is outlined as follows, complemented by a practical checklist to ensure alignment between actions, equity, engagement quality, and measurable outcomes. The roadmap is structured into three phases spanning a five-year program.

Phase 1: Foundation (0–1 year):

Cities should integrate SCB principles into municipal transport and sustainability plans through cross-departmental collaboration. They should also establish measurable sustainability and branding indicators aligned with SDGs to ensure transparency and accountability. At this stage, equity guardrails should be implemented to represent underserved groups, and independent audits, alongside key performance indicators (KPIs), should be conducted to verify that initial actions align with the city’s sustainability objectives.

Phase 2: Engagement and Experimentation (1–3 years):

Participatory branding platforms should be created where citizens, businesses, and local organizations co-design brand narratives and mobility initiatives, while pilot projects linking SCB with sustainable transport, such as green mobility corridors or climate-resilient transit hubs, are implemented to generate visible, scalable outcomes. High-quality stakeholder engagement must be maintained through co-design activities, feedback loops, and participatory workshops, with KPIs including citizen participation rates, satisfaction with engagement processes, and the number of implemented pilot projects ensuring that initiatives reflect community values and priorities.

Phase 3: Monitoring and Scaling (3–5 years):

Digital technologies such as social media analytics and digital twins should be leveraged for real-time monitoring of public sentiment and branding impact, while pilot outcomes are evaluated and successful initiatives scaled, adjusting policies based on KPIs such as increased public transport ridership, reduced carbon emissions, enhanced citizen engagement, mode share, per capita CO₂ from travel, service reliability, perceived safety, and customer satisfaction.

This roadmap provides a structured, actionable pathway for cities to harness sustainable city branding as a driver for urban mobility and overall sustainability, ensuring both participatory engagement and measurable results. Across all phases, the practical checklist reinforces that actions remain consistent with the city’s sustainable mobility narrative, engagement quality remains high, equity considerations are safeguarded, and independent audits validate progress.

A set of KPIs is proposed in Table 2 to measure the integration of SCB into transport planning, aligned with the three core sustainability dimensions (social, environmental, and economic) plus an additional governance dimension.

Table 2. Key performance indicators for SCB integration in transport planning.

KPI	Units
Social Pillar
Citizen engagement levels	% of population participating in events
Perceived safety	survey score, e.g., (1–10)
Inclusivity in transport access	% of underserved neighborhoods with adequate service
Public transport satisfaction	survey score, e.g., (1–10)
Active mobility share	% of trips by transport mode
Environmental Pillar
CO2 emissions per capita from travel	kg CO2 per capita per year
Green transit corridor coverage	km of corridor per 100,000 inhabitants
Adoption of low-emission transport modes	% of fleet that is electric/low-emission
Air quality improvement	µg/m3 reduction in PM2.5/NOx
Energy consumption per km	kWh per passenger-km
Economic Pillar
Local green business participation	% of transport-related businesses certified green
Transport-related job creation	number of jobs created
Cost-efficiency of sustainable mobility initiatives	€ per passenger-km
Investment in green transport infrastructure	€ per year or per capita
Public–private partnership projects	number of initiatives
Governance Pillar
Municipal departments adopting SCB principles	% of municipal departments
Projects incorporating equity considerations	% of total transport projects
Frequency of independent performance audits	number per year
Stakeholder engagement quality	survey score, e.g., (1–10)
Transparency in reporting	number of published reports or datasets

AI-driven sentiment analysis offers a continuous, real-time measure of citizen perceptions and satisfaction, complementing traditional KPIs across social, environmental, economic, and governance dimensions. By analyzing social media posts, mobile app feedback, and survey responses, cities can quantify public sentiment toward mobility services, sustainability initiatives, and city branding efforts. Aggregated on a weekly or monthly basis, sentiment scores can be correlated with quantitative KPIs to uncover trends, identify causal relationships, and inform timely policy adjustments. For example, a decline in sentiment regarding a specific route could prompt targeted improvements in service reliability, schedule optimization, or tailored communication campaigns.

This study advances the current SCB framework by presenting three main contributions:

• Explicit integration with transport planning. While earlier frameworks focus on branding or sustainability independently, our model directly links SCB with sustainable mobility as a lever for urban transformation.
• Participatory and digital dimensions. Unlike traditional frameworks, the proposed framework emphasizes citizen science, co-creation, and real-time monitoring via digital tools, ensuring responsiveness to community needs.
• Policy roadmap alignment. The framework is operationalized into a concrete multi-phase roadmap for municipal decision-makers, bridging the gap between theory and practical implementation.

7. Challenges and Risks in Sustainable City Branding

Sustainable city branding, promoting a city as environmentally responsible, socially inclusive, and economically resilient, has become a key strategy for urban competitiveness. While this approach can attract investment, foster civic pride, and support environmental goals, it also carries several risks that, if not carefully managed, can undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the city’s sustainability efforts.

One of the most damaging practices in modern city branding is greenwashing [32,67,68,69] that occurs when cities make bold sustainability claims or market themselves as environmentally friendly without backing these claims with substantial action. While the attraction of promoting a “green” image may interest eco-conscious tourists, investors, and residents, the lack of real sustainability initiatives can lead to a significant credibility gap. Once stakeholders, including local communities and environmental organizations, recognize the gap between the city’s claims and actions, trust in the city brand is quickly eroded. This damages the city’s reputation and can trigger sustained negative reactions. Once stakeholders, including local communities and environmental organizations, recognize the gap between the city’s claims and actions, trust in the city brand is quickly eroded. This undermines the city’s reputation and may lead to long-term backlash.

In today’s increasingly aware and connected world, consumers, citizens, and investors are more discerning, and cities that fail to live up to their sustainability promises risk being labeled as deceptive. To avoid greenwashing, cities must commit to measurable and transparent sustainability efforts, such as reducing carbon emissions, supporting green infrastructure, and fostering sustainable local businesses. Authenticity in sustainability initiatives is not just a brand asset; it is essential for maintaining long-term credibility and public trust [42]. Regular publication of sustainability performance dashboards can also enhance accountability and foster trust among citizens and investors.

To counteract the risk of social exclusion in SCB, cities must take an inclusive approach that prioritizes social equity alongside environmental and economic sustainability [42]. Often, city branding campaigns for sustainability highlight more affluent or well-developed areas, neglecting regions that are in greater need of green infrastructure or access to sustainable services. This unequal distribution of resources in city branding risks reinforcing existing social inequalities. City branding should reflect the values and needs of both residents and visitors, ensuring that local communities are included in the narrative [33]. Developing co-creation platforms, such as participatory workshops, citizen assemblies, or online engagement tools, can ensure that marginalized voices contribute to defining the city’s brand identity and sustainability priorities. Such participatory practices strengthen legitimacy and enhance the social inclusiveness of branding strategies.

Another risk is tokenistic/superficial public participation in the branding process. Cities may claim to engage citizens in shaping the sustainability narrative but only offer limited or symbolic opportunities for input. This superficial engagement can alienate residents and fail to reflect the actual diversity of the city’s population. When communities feel excluded from meaningful decision-making, branding efforts lose authenticity and fail to build broad-based support for sustainability initiatives [32,42,70]. To address this, cities can establish multi-stakeholder governance structures, such as advisory councils or partnership networks, ensuring continuous dialogue between planners, local governments, businesses, and residents throughout the branding process. Embedding participation within decision-making cycles transforms branding from a communication tool into a governance mechanism.

Other threats may arise when cities prioritize branding over concrete action, focusing more on external image than on internal transformation. Emphasizing visual identity, such as logos, slogans, or green aesthetic, without investing in deep policy changes or infrastructural shifts can result in a city brand that is attractive but hollow [33,71,72]. A solution lies in aligning branding objectives with urban policy frameworks—particularly Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs), climate adaptation strategies, and local SDG action plans to ensure that communication reflects genuine progress. Integrating branding within planning instruments allows cities to move from symbolic representation to systemic implementation.

Effectively managing these risks enables branding to position cities as leaders in innovation and sustainability; nevertheless, this is a complex process fraught with numerous challenges. One of the greatest challenges is ensuring that the city’s sustainable image aligns with its actual policies and practices which justify building a brand rooted in authenticity. Another significant challenge is the struggle of SCB to balance economic growth with social equity and environmental protection. Addressing these tensions requires a governance model based on transparency, participation, and policy coherence—turning sustainable city branding from a promotional strategy into a transformative process for long-term urban resilience.

8. Research Gaps and Future Direction

Despite growing attention, the integration of sustainability principles into city branding remains underexplored. Future studies could investigate how sustainability can be embedded as a core brand value, examining the tension between short-term promotional objectives and long-term brand resilience [73,74]. Comparative analyses across geographic and cultural contexts would also clarify how cities translate global sustainability discourses into localized branding narratives, helping identify the conditions that enable successful SCB implementation.

Another research gap concerns citizen participation and co-creation in sustainable city branding. While participatory branding is gaining importance, there is limited empirical evidence on effective models for integrating citizen voices into brand strategy formulation and evaluation [75].

A further limitation lies in the absence of standardized metrics and evaluation frameworks for assessing the effectiveness and credibility of sustainable city brands. Developing measurable indicators that capture environmental, social, and perceptual outcomes remains a key priority. Finally, with the rapid digital transformation of urban communication, the role of emerging technologies such as social media analytics, big data, and immersive technologies (e.g., virtual and augmented reality) in shaping, monitoring, and co-creating sustainable city brands offers a rich and underdeveloped research frontier [76,77,78]. Together, these gaps highlight the need for more interdisciplinary, evidence-based, and context-sensitive research to advance both the theory and practice of sustainable city branding.

9. Conclusions

Sustainable city branding extends traditional city branding by aligning urban identity with environmental responsibility, social inclusion, and economic resilience. A credible and impactful SCB relies on authenticity, civic engagement, and cross-sector collaboration. Authenticity requires transparent governance, measurable sustainability actions, and consistent implementation to avoid greenwashing and maintain public trust. Civic participation, facilitated through participatory workshops, digital platforms, and community representation, ensures that branding reflects the lived experiences, needs, and aspirations of residents, fostering ownership, legitimacy, and social cohesion.

RQ1: How can transportation planning, when aligned with SCB, act as a powerful driver for promoting public transportation and enhancing urban sustainability?

This study demonstrates that SCB processes (brand construction, identity negotiation, and trust building) can be strategically integrated with transport planning to achieve multiple sustainability objectives. Sustainable mobility initiatives, including walkable streets, cycling paths, low-emission public transit, and green transit infrastructure, not only improve urban functionality but also reinforce the city’s identity as a forward-thinking, livable, and environmentally responsible space. By embedding participatory governance and citizen science into transport planning, SCB fosters inclusive decision-making that balances environmental, social, and economic goals while co-creating a shared vision for sustainable mobility.

RQ2: Which methodologies are most appropriate for evaluating SCB effectiveness in transport planning?

Evaluation requires a multi-dimensional approach that combines quantitative indicators, qualitative assessments, and digital analytics Metrics such as ISO standards, sustainability indices, resident and stakeholder surveys, big data analysis of digital media, and SDG-aligned frameworks allow cities to measure branding authenticity, transport-related sustainability outcomes, and global competitiveness. These tools provide evidence-based foundations for continuous improvement, benchmarking, and transparent communication of progress to both residents and external audiences. This paper proposes a roadmap for decision-makers structured into three phases spanning a five-year program and a set of KPIs is proposed to measure the integration of SCB into transport planning, aligned with the three core sustainability dimensions (social, environmental, and economic) plus an additional governance dimension.

RQ3: Which challenges and risks might cities face when adopting SCB strategies?

SCB is vulnerable to greenwashing, tokenistic citizen engagement, inequitable resource allocation, and overemphasis on visual branding without substantive infrastructure or policy action [46,76,77]. Addressing these risks requires authentic and measurable sustainability efforts, meaningful stakeholder participation, and alignment between branding narratives and tangible improvements in mobility systems. By doing so, cities can enhance trust, civic pride, and long-term support for sustainable urban development.

Ultimately, this study positions SCB not merely as a promotional tool but as a strategic governance approach capable of transforming urban mobility, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. The proposed conceptual framework illustrates the interconnections between SCB processes, outcomes, and evaluation methodologies, highlighting the importance of integrating transport planning, citizen engagement, and sustainability metrics to achieve resilient and credible city brands. The proposed roadmap founded in the conceptual framework aims to be useful for decision-makers as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. SCB multidimensional framework.