From Distance to Accessible Experience: Accessibility Barriers in Proximity-Oriented Urban Environments for Persons with Disabilities in Madrid and Munich

Abstract

Proximity-oriented urban models, such as the 15-min city, have been promoted to create sustainable, human-centered urban environments that support wellbeing. However, proximity alone does not guarantee accessibility, particularly for persons with disabilities. This paper explores how persons with disabilities experience and navigate Madrid (Spain) and Munich (Germany) under the proximity-oriented policies prism. Drawing on 114 semi-structured interviews (65 in Madrid, 49 in Munich), the study explores how urban form, design features, and environmental conditions shape access, movement, and engagement in public space. Findings reveal that key barriers, such as irregular paving and sidewalk obstructions, limit independence and comfort, while contextual factors such as climate, topography, and local cultural practices further modulate accessibility. Despite proximity, many participants remain reliant on cars instead of public transport due to these micro-scale barriers. By integrating proximity planning, inclusive urban experiences and universal design, this study highlights the need to move from “proximity as distance” to “proximity as accessible experience”, arguing that accessibility must be embedded as a structuring condition of proximity planning. Ultimately, these findings contribute to ongoing debates on sustainable built environments and human wellbeing, highlighting the importance of architectural and urban design in fostering equitable, healthy, and inclusive cities.

1. Introduction

Across Europe and beyond, proximity-city urban models—such as the 15-min City in Paris, the City of Short Distances in Berlin or the Superblocks in Barcelona—have gained recognition and relevance as planning strategies aimed at fostering sustainable built environments and enhancing the living comfort of its inhabitants [1,2,3]. By redistributing daily services and activities within short walking or cycling distances, these models seek to reduce car dependency and promote human-centred environments [4,5]. While proximity-based models are often presented as a positive step towards environmental sustainability, social cohesion and local economic vitality [6,7,8,9], emerging research cautions against assuming that spatial proximity automatically leads to social inclusion [10]. The relationship between proximity planning and human well-being, therefore, cannot be understood solely through distance, but must also account for how different users actually experience the built environments.

Recent scholarship highlights that proximity planning may overlook equity, accessibility and diversity of users’ needs when focused on spatial form and physical distance alone [10,11]. Persons with disabilities, in particular, often face complex barriers that constrain their independent urban experience [12,13]. Empirical studies show that last-mile micro-barriers and street-level design deficiencies systematically reduce mobility for disabled users, demonstrating the limits of conventional planning metrics based solely on distance and travel time [14,15]. If left unaddressed, such models risk reproducing exclusion patterns even under the lenses of sustainability [8,16], perpetuating exclusion, lack of autonomy and non-inclusive urban models.

This paper challenges the prevailing approach to proximity-based urban models, which traditionally prioritise distance as the main criterion for accessibility. It argues that proximity should be reconceptualised as an accessible experience, where urban spaces and everyday interactions are designed to meet the diverse and context-dependent needs of all users, including those with physical, sensory (visual and hearing), cognitive, and organic disabilities. By shifting the focus from distance to lived experience, this study contributes to creating more inclusive urban environments that foster autonomy and well-being for everyone.

This study adopts an exploratory, experience-based approach to accessibility in proximity-oriented urban environments. It includes participants with physical, visual, hearing, cognitive, and organic disabilities, reflecting a range of permanent impairments reported at the time of the study. Temporary impairments are not explicitly addressed. While multiple disability types are considered, the analysis focuses primarily on everyday urban experiences and engagement with public space, as these dimensions structure access to services and daily activities in proximity-based planning models. The study does not aim for statistical representativeness, but to explore facilitators and constraints across diverse disability profiles and urban contexts. This approach aligns with recent calls for integrating subjective mobility experiences into urban accessibility research [17,18].

In the literature on urban accessibility and mobility, proximity-based planning such as the 15-min city has been predominantly operationalised through quantitative distance and time thresholds focused on spatial distribution [18,19,20]. However, although useful for broad comparisons, these metrics have been criticised for oversimplifying the complexity of lived mobility and for ignoring varied, diverse lived experiences and barriers that different populations face when navigating urban space [17,21,22,23]. Recent frameworks propose multi-dimensional accessibility measures that integrate proximal opportunity, temporal constraints, and subjective valuations of urban places, highlighting how inclusion cannot be captured solely by distance [24,25]. Moreover, studies on inclusive accessibility indices that diverse mobility profiles underscore the need to complement conventional planning metrics with micro-scale, embodied, and perceptual conditionings of the urban environment [26,27].

To address these gaps, the following section develops a conceptual framework that reframes proximity as an accessible experience and integrates proximity planning, inclusive urban environments, and universal design, while explicitly situating these concepts within ongoing debates on experiential accessibility (or how people experience accessibility), barrier studies, and disability-inclusive urban design.

1.1. Proximity as Accessible Experience: Conceptual Framework

Although traditional urban planning focuses on a medical model targeting specific health diagnoses to address urban barriers, current trends on the matter follow an inclusive and social justice approach [12,23]. Universal Design (UD) principles offer a normative and practical framework to assess whether urban environments are usable by everyone without any particular adaptation, meaning at the creation of inclusive cities. These principles, initially theorised by Mace et al. [28], include (1) equitable use, (2) flexibility in use, (3) simple and intuitive use, (4) perceptible information, (5) tolerance for error, (6) low physical effort, (7) and size and space for approach and use. When applied, universal design is often associated with the environment as “accessible”, which was defined by Iwarsson and Ståhl as “the simplicity with which activities in society can be reached, including the needs of citizens” [29]. The seven principles of Universal Design provide a superior framework for assessing “accessible experience” because they transcend minimum compliance requirements and instead encourage a holistic, anticipatory, and user-centred evaluation of environments [30]. Unlike simple checklists, which focus on meeting specific technical criteria, the UD principles foreground usability, flexibility, perceptibility, and intuitive interaction—dimensions that are critical to how diverse users actually experience urban space. These principles were developed by interdisciplinary researchers to guide the design of environments that are usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialised solutions [28].

In the field of disability inclusion and urban planning, some studies have criticised works that adhere to compliance-based approaches that overlook the intersectional and experiential dimensions of accessibility. As shown in this literature, standard accessibility models often fail because they rely on normative assumptions that obscure the lived realities of disabled [31]. A disability justice lens, grounded in social and rights-based models, emphasises the political and ethical implications of accessibility planning and design, and highlights how urban infrastructures and policies produce disabling environments and urban experiences, not just barriers that individuals must overcome [11,32]. This literature also foregrounds the importance of micro-scale street design, maintenance, and last-mile accessibility, showing how conventional metrics often fail to capture these experiential constraints [15]. With it, inclusive urban environments bring attention to the capacity of persons with disabilities to move freely, safely, independently, and with dignity through urban space, including both physical and experiential barriers [11,33].

This issue is also present in the ongoing debates on proximity-based models. Proximity planning focuses on ensuring that daily services can be found within short distances, thus fostering active mobility and reducing car dependence [34]. The four pillars guiding these models—proximity, density, diversity, and ubiquity/digitalisation [35]—provide a spatial logic, but without explicit attention to user diversity, they risk benefiting only those already able to navigate urban space with ease [10]. Recent studies on proximity models and 15-min cities have begun addressing this matter, considering that these new planning trends tend to overlook inclusion and universal accessibility, while calling for action to include these principles in the planning process [36]. According to a report delivered by EIT Urban Mobility on the 15-min city, they discussed who was included in the design of proximity environments [8]. Likewise, other studies argue that the over-standardisation of the proximity approach and last-mile barriers may lead to unwelcoming cities for persons with disabilities [20,37,38]. These problems derive from counter-inclusive or non-experiential tools that are commonly used in proximity planning, such as distance-based metrics [27,39], travel time [8,40,41], network impedance [42,43], or accessibility indices [26,44,45]. However, none of the examined works included experiential accessibility as part of their assessment and planning approach. This results in metrics not assessing the different urban planning needs, such as the different distance-time speeds, as the EIT Urban Mobility on the 15-min city reports: while persons on wheelchair may travel at 1 km/h and with crutches or canes at 3.5 km/h, persons on electric wheelchairs travel at 6 km/h, faster that the estimate of 5 km/h of an average, stereotyped pedestrian [8]. This translates into biased metrics used for urban planning and assessment in experiential accessibility, micro-barriers and other obstacles are not considered.

Taken together, these frameworks reveal key gaps: proximity planning emphasises distance but often ignores lived, embodied barriers; inclusive urban environments consider lived experience but lack standard operationalisation; universal design offers principles but is unevenly implemented. This mapping clarifies where prior approaches fall short and situates the current study as an empirical intervention to fill these gaps.

Operationalising this approach, this study investigates subjective barriers and planning constraints reported by persons with disabilities in Madrid and Munich, contributing experiential evidence to a field still dominated by aggregated metrics that obscure lived realities. This ensures a direct link between empirical data and theoretical gaps, addressing critiques of previous frameworks.

1.2. Objective of the Study

This paper explores the impact of proximity-based policies under the universal design lens to achieve inclusive urban environments in Madrid (Spain) and Munich (Germany). By examining how proximity-oriented mobility environments are experienced by persons with disabilities, the study aims to contribute to a more inclusive approach to proximity planning as part of sustainable built environments that support human wellbeing in European cities.

The specific objectives are:

• To describe and compare the perceptions and modal behaviours of persons with disabilities in relation to proximity policies in two European cities (Madrid and Munich), complementing quantitative reported data with experiential evidence.
• To examine the spatial and design-related features of the built environment influencing participants’ experience of the city, with particular attention to conditions enabling or constraining independent, safe, and comfortable participation.
• To identify the urban barriers most commonly reported by participants and discuss their implications for the practical implementation of proximity planning models that seek to balance sustainability goals with social equity and wellbeing.

Taken together, these objectives contribute to ongoing discussions on universal design and inclusive urban environments by framing proximity as an accessible experience that links accessibility, well-being and the inclusive design of sustainable built environments.

2. Madrid and Munich as Contrasting Proximity-Accessibility Frameworks

Madrid (Spain) and Munich (Germany) (Figure 1) were selected as comparative case studies because they represent contrasting urban morphologies, mobility cultures, and approaches to accessibility, while both cities engage—explicitly or implicitly—with proximity-oriented planning principles.

Table 1. Demographic, economic and geographic profiles relevant to proximity-based mobility, accessibility, and inclusive urban planning profiles of the case studies of Madrid and Munich metropolitan regions. Sources: Varied sources, cited within the table.

		Metropolitan Region of Madrid	Metropolitan Region of Munich
Population		6.769.373 habitants, NUTS 2 region [46]	4.729.243 habitants, NUTS 2 region [46]
Area		8.028 km2, NUTS 2 region [47]	17.531 Km2, NUTS 2 region [47]
Prevalence of disability		5.7, NUTS 2 region [48]	9.2, NUTS 2 region [48]
PPS per inhabitant		34,100€, NUTS 2 region [49]	53,800€, NUTS 2 region [49]
Modal share	Car	29% [50]	34% [51]
	Public Transport	43% [50]	24% [51]
	Cycling	2% [50]	18% [51]
	Walking	28% [50]	24% [51]

provides an overview of key demographic, socio-economic, and mobility characteristics of both metropolitan regions, offering contextual grounding for the comparative analysis.

Rather than serving as exhaustive policy reviews, the two cases are used here as analytical frameworks to examine how proximity-oriented urban environments are shaped by architectural and urban design conditions, particularly at the street and neighbourhood scales. This approach responds to critiques that proximity-city models rely heavily on distance-based metrics while overlooking design-mediated accessibility and lived, translative proximity into everyday accessible experiences through architectural and urban design conditions [8,10].

These conditions interrupt spatial continuity and require frequent detours, undermining autonomy and comfort despite short distances to destinations. The findings illustrate how compactness alone is insufficient to achieve inclusive proximity when accessibility is addressed primarily through regulations or isolated interventions rather than embedded architectural design logic [28,33].

Consequently, this study does not evaluate policy frameworks or regulatory compliance directly, but examines how proximity- and accessibility-related agendas are manifested through everyday interactions with the built environment.

2.1. Madrid: Compact Urban Form and Fragmented Accessibility Integration

Madrid exemplifies a proximity-oriented urban context rooted in dense, compact, and mixed-use urban form, characteristic of Mediterranean planning traditions [52,53]. Many central neighbourhoods align with proximity principles by concentrating daily services within relatively short distances. This spatial configuration has often been associated with reduced travel demand and increased opportunities for local mobility. Empirical studies of walking accessibility in central Madrid demonstrate that variations in urban design factors such as comfort, attractiveness, and safety significantly influence accessibility outcomes beyond mere spatial proximity [54].

However, the existing literature indicates that accessibility in Madrid has often been addressed through incremental adaptations and sector-specific interventions, rather than through comprehensive, integrated urban design strategies [16,33]. Madrid’s public space is shaped by a historically layered street fabric, where successive modifications have accommodated evolving social, commercial, and mobility demands within limited spatial envelopes.

This context is characterised by narrow rights-of-way, heterogeneous surface treatments, and competing street uses, particularly in central areas where pedestrian movement, outdoor terraces, parking, and micromobility coexist [54,55]. In such environments, proximity is largely a product of compact land-use patterns, while the usability of everyday spaces depends on how micro-scale design elements—such as sidewalk continuity, surface quality, and transitions between movement zones—are resolved within constrained conditions.

However, governance inconsistencies and limited accessibility training among urban planners continue to contribute to public spaces that inadequately support persons of different ages and abilities, affecting everyday autonomy, comfort, and perceived safety in the urban arena [56,57].

2.2. Munich: Neighbourhood-Scale Planning and Accessibility-Oriented Design Cultures

Munich provides a contrasting framework characterised by a longstanding tradition of neighbourhood-scale planning, walkability, and accessibility-oriented design, despite the absence of an explicitly branded proximity-city model such as the “15-min city” [8,58]. Mixed-use development, legible street networks, and coordinated public transport systems are widely identified as foundational elements of the city’s urban structure.

The literature highlights Munich’s emphasis on embedding accessibility considerations within broader urban development and design practices, rather than treating them as isolated or corrective measures [59]. From an architectural and urban design standpoint, this approach is associated with greater attention to spatial legibility, continuity of pedestrian networks, and clearly articulated hierarchies between different mobility modes. This approach is supported by academic research on accessibility planning in the Munich metropolitan region, including tools such as the TUM Accessibility Atlas developed to integrate land-use and transport planning into strategic accessibility assessments [60].

Public space in Munich is frequently described as benefiting from more consistent design logic and implementation practices across neighbourhoods, supporting predictable and navigable environments [58]. While challenges related to mobility interfaces and spatial negotiation remain part of the urban condition, Munich is often cited as an example of how accessibility can be incorporated as a normative design concern within proximity-supportive urban contexts. One example is the establishment of an Advisory Council for Persons with disabilities to ensure their needs are considered in urban planning [61].

2.3. Comparative Framing: Proximity as a Design-Mediated Condition

Taken together, Madrid and Munich demonstrate that proximity-oriented urban environments are shaped not only by land-use patterns or distance thresholds, but by architectural and urban design logics that mediate everyday movement. Existing research suggests that cities where accessibility is treated as a core design concern—rather than as an outcome of spatial compactness alone—are better positioned to translate proximity into inclusive and usable environments [16,28,33].

Table 2. Comparative Table—Proximity, Inclusive urban environment, and Universal Design in Madrid and Munich. Source: Authors’ editing based on in-text references.

Dimension	Madrid	Munich
Proximity Planning	- Framed by compact-city Mediterranean planning traditions. - Recent initiatives refer to the 15-min city model, focusing mixed land-uses. - Proximity is gaining presence in planning discourse, but often not operationalized with access criteria to services.	- Proximity principles through mixed-use neighbourhoods. - Stronger tradition of neighbourhood-scale urbanism. - Proximity is discussed alongside accessibility and equity, not only spatial metrics.
Inclusive Urban Environment	- Public transport promoted in policy but often inaccessible in practice. - No mention of inclusion-oriented actions in official proximity initiatives.	- Reported access to public transport is more consistent. - Soft mobility is supported through adapted infrastructure and targeted programs. - Pedestrian areas are mainly located in the city centre.
Universal Design	- Not explicitly included in urban policies. - Barriers are frequently reported but not systematically addressed in planning frameworks.	- Barrier-free design is a well-known standard in Munich. - Universal design is present in public space infrastructure, and tied to broader planning tools.

synthesises the main characteristics of these contrasting proximity–accessibility frameworks.

This comparative framing establishes the contextual basis for the empirical analysis that follows, which examines how these differing urban design cultures shape lived mobility experiences for persons with disabilities. By conceptualising proximity as a design-mediated condition, the framework aligns proximity-oriented planning with architectural debates on inclusivity, sustainability, and wellbeing in the built environment.

3. Materials and Methods

This study is guided by an interpretive research philosophy, which understands accessibility as a socially and spatially constructed phenomenon shaped by lived experiences, contextual conditions, and everyday practices [62]. Given the emerging nature of proximity-based policies and their implications for vulnerable populations, an exploratory, comparative mixed-methods approach was adopted to capture both recurring patterns and the experiential meanings underlying them. This methodological framework supports an interpretive comparison across contexts, aligning with recent methodological contributions that highlight the value of qualitative approaches for understanding complex interconnections between urban environments, health, and lived experience.

A semi-structured, mixed-method interview design was employed, incorporating both closed (written) and open-answer (written and oral) questions. In total, 65 interviews were conducted in Madrid and 49 in Munich, enabling a comparative exploratory analysis of how vulnerable populations perceive barriers in proximity-based policies across two distinct metropolitan contexts.

The integration of descriptive quantitative indicators and qualitative thematic analysis responds directly to the study’s research objectives. Descriptive statistics are used to identify patterns, contrasts, and recurring conditions across contexts. At the same time, qualitative data provide the empirical depth necessary to interpret the rationales, motivations, and lived experiences underlying these patterns. This combined strategy allows for the identification of patterns while providing a rich empirical context for understanding how accessibility is experienced in everyday urban environments.

Qualitative data from open-ended responses constitute the core analytical material and were analysed through inductive thematic coding. Open-ended responses were independently coded by two researchers following Braun and Clarke’s [63] approach, to avoid potential biases in results interpreting. Codes were iteratively grouped into broader themes through discussion, focusing on recurring spatial barriers, design conditions, and experiential constraints. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. The integration of controlled questions (quantitative data) and open-answer questions (qualitative data) enables a deeper understanding of complex and contextualised experiences of persons with disability [64]. This approach supports interpretive comparison across contexts while remaining consistent with the exploratory scope of the study.

In this context, the study followed a standard 3-step procedure (Figure 2):

3.1. Study Design

The study utilised exploratory, semi-structured interviews combining closed-ended questions (to generate descriptive quantitative indicators) and open-ended questions (to capture qualitative, experiential accounts) [38]. This methodological approach allowed participants to provide information on personal experiences and perceptual barriers, sharing more elaborate, complex and contextual variables relevant to inclusive design [39]. This mixed-method format integrates quantitative data with narrative responses to unearth commonly unaddressed barriers affecting persons with disabilities [35,36], while adhering to non-interventional research standards and institutional ethics regulations.

Three main sets of questions were used, including a free comments section:

• Personal information, disabling conditions and means of transportation (objective 1).
• Subjective barriers to accessing proximal areas (objectives 2 and 3).
• Comments Section (objectives 1, 2 and 3 complementary experiential information).

This study design aimed to reveal how individuals adapt their behaviour within the urban arena based on personal and environmental constraints under proximity planning principles. For the current analysis, sets 1 and 2 were considered to establish the contour situation for each respondent and collect data for city comparisons on perceived barriers. The comments section provided additional narrative and experiential data.

Furthermore, to ensure that COVID-19 post-pandemic mobility conditions did not influence the study’s findings, careful attention was given to the study design. While data collection took place in two different years (Madrid in 2021 and Munich in 2022), very proximate to this health crisis, the research questions were explicitly framed to focus on long-term mobility and urban accessibility concerns, rather than pandemic-specific disruptions, avoiding potential pandemic biases. This ensured that participants’ responses reflected their ongoing experiences of urban environments rather than temporary mobility shifts linked to the crisis. As an exploratory study, the aim was to gather diverse perspectives on urban access rather than to generate definitive conclusions about post-pandemic mobility trends.

3.2. Data Collection

Exploratory studies considering similar population groups and addressing public-space behaviour often target 15~30 interviews [40,41,42], while this project aimed to collect 30 and 60 interviews per location, ensuring a wide range of disability profiles, including organic, physical, cognitive, visual and hearing disabilities. The specific number of participants in each disability category and other details on the sample considered in this study are shown in

Table 3. Data collection information for Madrid and Munich.

	Madrid	Munich
Time period	May–July 2021	August–September 2022
Medium	Online	Paper-based and online
Online platforms	Microsoft Forms	QuestionPro
Total sample	219	138
Total valid sample	104	75
Sample with or in representation of any disabling condition	65	49
Sample with organic disability	4	9
Sample with physical disability	32	23
Sample with cognitive disability	7	3
Sample with hearing disability	13	5
Sample with visual disability	9	9

:

All participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of their participation, and the anonymous use of their responses.

Participants were recruited through disability associations, mobility advocacy groups, and institutional stakeholder networks in both cities, using a purposive and snowball sampling strategy to reach individuals with direct experience of accessibility barriers. While this approach may introduce selection bias toward more engaged participants, it was considered appropriate for exploratory research aimed at capturing informed, experience-based accounts of urban accessibility.

The final sample varied between locations due to logistical limitations, including a shorter distribution period in Munich and greater difficulty in reaching respondents through online means. Despite this situation, the sample includes a sufficient variety of profiles in both contexts, while excluding the possibility of clustering. The aim of this research was not to produce statistically representative results, but to capture a diversity of lived experiences and uncover commonly overlooked variables affecting persons with disabilities in proximity-oriented contexts. The sample size is therefore consistent with the exploratory and qualitative focus of the study [40].

3.3. Data Curation

Data were organized using data and design processing software to ensure valid responses and facilitate the extraction of conclusions [43]. To validate responses, we applied the following exclusion criteria:

• Missingness: Responses with multiple missing or incomplete questions were excluded.
• Rapid Completion: Excluded responses if the questions of the semi-structured interview (estimated to take 15 min) were completed in less than 2 min.
• Logical Range: Included only answers with valid numeric information (e.g., days per week ≤ 7).
• Area of Study: Excluded responses from individuals outside Madrid and Munich.
• Aberrations: Ensured coherence and relevance to the topic.

Quantitative data were processed using spreadsheet-based data management tools, while qualitative coding was conducted manually to maintain close engagement with the empirical material. Open-ended responses were analysed using a basic thematic analysis approach, consistent with exploratory qualitative research [37].

Responses were read and coded manually by two researchers to identify recurring patterns in perceived barriers, spatial determinants, and experiential factors. Inter-coder reliability was ensured through independent parallel coding by two researchers, followed by iterative discussions to align interpretations and resolve discrepancies through consensus. Codes were iteratively grouped into broader thematic categories, which informed the structure of Section 4.

To enhance transparency, coding guidelines were defined prior to analysis, and regular discussions were held to minimize interpretive biases. Given the exploratory nature of this research, the goal was not to achieve statistical generalization but to uncover common patterns and context-specific barriers experienced by persons with disabilities in proximity-oriented urban contexts.

3.4. Institutional Review Board Statement

This study involved non-interventional research based on semi-structured interviews and did not include the collection or processing of personal data. According to the regulations of the Ethics Committee for R&D+I Activities at the Polytechnic University of Madrid (approved by the Governing Council on 30 March 2017), ethical review and approval were not required for this type of research. An exemption was granted under reference number CE251215, confirming that Institutional Review Board approval was not necessary.

Although the study collected information on disability categories and mobility behaviours, no personal or identifiable data were collected, stored, or processed. Disability categories were self-reported at a general level and were not linked to individual responses or used for disaggregated quantitative analysis, in line with the universal design framework adopted in this study. This approach intentionally avoids associating specific barriers with specific disability types, recognising that many environmental barriers affect multiple conditions simultaneously. The inclusion of disability categories in Table 3 serves solely to demonstrate the diversity of the sample, not to stratify or individualise findings.

4. Results

This section presents the main findings of the study, structured into three thematic clusters derived from the exploratory semi-structured interviews: (1) modal behaviour and its limits within proximity planning, (2) spatial and design features shaping modal preferences, and (3) experiential and perceptual mobility constraints. The results prioritise experiential patterns and design-relevant insights over statistical generalisation, foregrounding how accessibility conditions shape everyday mobility decisions under proximity-oriented urban policies. Findings are interpreted through a combined lens of proximity planning, inclusive urban environment, and universal design, and are presented using descriptive statistics alongside lived-experience narratives. Throughout all sections, a comparative reflection between Madrid and Munich is maintained.

4.1. Modal Behaviour in Proximity-Oriented Environments

This section analyses reported modal behaviour within proximity-oriented urban environments, focusing on the relationship between everyday mobility practices and the assumptions underpinning proximity-based planning. Figure 3 presents the distribution of transport modes used for daily activities in Madrid and Munich, revealing marked differences between cities while also exposing shared adaptive patterns across disability groups.

As shown in Figure 3, public transport was reported as the most frequently used transport by participants of both cities. Madrid presents a higher use of public transport (50.0% of respondents use bus, train, underground, or tram), while Munich’s respondents reported 39.7% public transport usage. This pattern suggests that, despite proximity-oriented planning, public transport remains the primary compensatory mode when walking or wheeling is not feasible, highlighting the dependence on accessible stations and transfer points, as highlighted by previous studies [65,66,67].

Public transport emerges as a core enabler within proximity policies for social sustainability, not just a functional alternative, allowing people to move barrier-free through their proximal public space. However, inaccessibility in public transport stations was repeatedly reported as a factor for deterring participants from opting for this mode. Comments from Munich and Madrid respondents highlight these barriers as single nodes that can disrupt entire journeys:

‘[I have to take] detours because [there is] no elevator’ (Person with visual and physical disability, Munich).

‘Sometimes I get to a station and it turns out the elevator is broken, forcing me to travel to the next station or sometimes I even have to go home and try another day’ (Person with physical disability, Madrid).

Walking and wheeling were some of the least-reported means in both cities. In Madrid, on-foot transportation and wheeling showed lower acceptance (5.9% and 1.5%) than in Munich, where 21.3% of the interview respondents reported walking and 5.4% wheeling to their daily activities. It has been reported that the streets of Madrid are unwelcoming for individuals with physical, sensory, or cognitive difficulties [55,68,69,70]. In contrast, Munich’s culture around active transportation provides a more favourable context for walking and wheeling, making it easier to adopt proximity policies in terms of active mobility.

Figure 3 shows that even where distances are short, participants’ narratives reveal that route safety, surface quality, and physical effort override distance itself. This demonstrates a clear mismatch between proximity as a spatial metric and proximity as lived experience. Across both cities, safety concerns play a decisive role in determining whether the public space is used for walking and wheeling, beyond considerations of mixed land use or distance:

‘Even though things are close, I don’t walk. It’s not about distance. It’s about safety and how exhausting the route is.’ (Person with physical disability, Madrid)

‘I don’t feel safe walking when it’s icy. And the bike lanes cut through the sidewalk, I’ve almost been hit more than once’ (Person with physical disability, Munich)

In Munich, cycling and other forms of soft mobility are deeply embedded within the urban fabric, with a modal share of 18% among the general population [51]. This reflects not only transport behaviour but also long-term spatial planning strategies that prioritise cycling infrastructure and multimodal integration. Compared to Madrid, Munich offers a broader spectrum of soft mobility options, including conventional bicycles, cargo bikes, shared bicycle systems, and financial support mechanisms that facilitate individual access to bicycles.

These provisions mirrored the experiences of people with disabilities: 17.4% of interviewees reported using some form of soft mobility device, including handbikes and other adaptive solutions. This contrast between cities indicates that soft mobility uptake is not merely a matter of individual preference but is closely linked to long-term infrastructural investments and cultural norms that either enable or constrain adaptive mobility solutions.

From an architectural and urban design perspective, cycling is often perceived as spatially efficient and temporally flexible, enabling direct routes and continuous movement that are less dependent on fixed schedules than public transport systems [71]. In contrast, none of the participants in Madrid reported using soft mobility devices for daily travel, pointing to structural and environmental constraints rather than individual preference. The presence of handbikes among Munich respondents suggests an urban environment that accommodates a wider spectrum of physical abilities through accessible street design, surface quality, and network continuity [72]. Conversely, in Madrid, physical and individual constraints remain strongly interrelated with infrastructural limitations, reinforcing barriers to independent use of the public network [73].

At the same time, the increasing spatial integration of soft mobility modes raises concerns regarding conflicts between different users of public space. These include issues related to sidewalk encroachment, parking practices, speed differentials, pedestrian flow obstruction, and insufficient regulatory or spatial frameworks to mediate shared use [74,75,76,77]. Such tensions are reflected in comments from Munich respondents, who highlight spatial discontinuities and design shortcomings at critical interfaces within the urban environment:

‘Although it is quite a safe and well-organized city, again crossings are their weakness’ (Person with hearing and visual disabilities, Munich).

‘Munich needs more space on streets for bicycle riders so that pedestrians and wheelchair-users have more space on sidewalks.’ (Person with physical disability, Munich).

These observations underscore the importance of spatial hierarchy, clear allocation of movement zones, and inclusive design principles in shaping urban environments, capable of accommodating diverse mobility practices. Even in cities with strong cycling cultures, micro-scale discontinuities—particularly at crossings—can undermine the usability of soft mobility for disabled users.

Despite proximity-oriented planning approaches, private vehicles remain essential for many respondents. In Madrid, 38.2% reported driving themselves and 2.9% travelling as passengers, compared to 11.4% and 5.4% respectively in Munich; motorbike use remained marginal in both cities. This reliance underscores that proximity planning, when not paired with accessible design, can inadvertently increase car dependency among those who face the greatest barriers to active modes.

From an architectural perspective, these findings reveal a tension between sustainability-driven proximity models and inclusive spatial design. While compact urban form aims to reduce car dependency, it often fails to account for barriers within streetscapes, transport interfaces, and public space. For many persons with disabilities, car use becomes a necessary response to inaccessible environments rather than a matter of preference.

Although scooters are generally perceived as leisure-oriented rather than functional mobility tools in both cities [42,78], little research addresses their potential to support diverse bodily needs.

Overall, these findings contribute to Objective 1 by showing that spatial proximity alone does not guarantee inclusive urban environments for persons with disabilities, which was the primary thesis of this research. Instead, outcomes are shaped by the interaction between urban form, infrastructural design, and perceived safety, which together determine whether proximity-oriented spaces enable equitable access and independent use or reinforce reliance on private vehicles as compensatory solutions. In the next section, we will dive into the specific urban design conditions that shape the interaction between persons with disabilities and the proximal environment. The results show that modal behaviour emerges from the interaction between design affordances, perceived safety, and embodied constraints, rather than from proximity alone.

4.2. Spatial and Design Features Shaping Modal Preferences

This section addresses Objective 2 of this study by analysing how specific spatial and design features shape modal preferences among persons with disabilities in proximity-oriented environments. While proximity-based planning often assumes that services located nearby will be accessed easily by everyone [79], previous research has already highlighted that this assumption does not hold when accessibility barriers persist in everyday routes [10,22]. Across both case studies, participants identified recurrent spatial and design barriers that limit or prevent independent navigation, whether on foot, using wheeled devices, or through public transport. The analysis also considers the role of soft mobility devices—such as bicycles, scooters, and hand-bikes—in understanding how the built environment accommodates active and adaptive modes of movement.

Figure 4 illustrates participants’ choices among walking/wheeling and public transport when time constraints were not decisive to focus on urban and architectural obstacles alone. Participants’ willingness to walk, wheel, or cycle is highly contingent on micro-scale design conditions—such as surface continuity, curb management, and crossing design—similar to those micro-scale conditions that have been identified as critical determinants of perceived accessibility in previous empirical studies [25,43].

Overall, Figure 4 reveals a consistent gap between preferred and feasible modes. Although most participants expressed a preference for walking or wheeling, this preference is highly contingent on route familiarity, perceived safety, and environmental predictability. This gap reflects patterns observed in studies on perceived and relational accessibility, where proximity alone fails to ensure usable access for diverse users [22,27].

Walking or wheeling emerged as the most preferred mode in both cities, selected by 62.7% of respondents in Madrid and 78.0% in Munich. This strong preference indicates that active mobility is desirable when conditions allow it, yet participants’ narratives show that this desire is frequently constrained by environmental and perceptual barriers, reinforcing that preference does not equal feasibility. Participants valued these modes for providing opportunities for physical activity, access to open-air environments, and leisure, while also fostering a sense of freedom that supports autonomy and mental well-being [80,81]:

‘On foot. I enjoy walking and being outside in the fresh air.’ (Parents with kids, Munich).

‘[…] I prefer to avoid ‘feeling trapped’ (Person with cognitive disability, Madrid).

These testimonies illustrate that walking/wheeling is valued not only as a mode of transport but as an experiential practice linked to autonomy and emotional comfort—dimensions rarely captured in proximity-based planning metrics.

For Munich respondents, the fact that walking is free also influenced their choice, suggesting that public transport might have been considered if not for cost, a factor related more to urban management than to design. This contrast between cities suggests that modal preferences are shaped not only by design but also by governance factors such as fare policies, which can indirectly influence accessibility choices. Accessibility and stress within public transport were also key, as inaccessibility can create overwhelming situations. Negative experiences can reduce confidence in navigating complex transport systems independently or introduce obstacles beyond what participants are prepared to face [82]. This reflects findings by Worth et al. [70], who found that active travel is often chosen to avoid unpredictable or stressful transport infrastructure. Respondents from both cities highlighted these issues, reinforcing the close connection between mode preference and the spatial and design limitations of other transport options:

‘Walking [because] I don’t have to deal with obstacles or overcrowding’ (Person with physical disability, Madrid).

‘I prefer to stroll because I avoid the stress that the bus ramp causes me because it is not working or the elevator is out of service’ (Person with physical disability, Madrid).

These examples show that participants often choose walking not because the route is inherently accessible, but because it allows them to avoid the unpredictability and stress associated with inaccessible public transport infrastructure.

Public transport was selected by 29.4% of respondents in Madrid and 9.8% in Munich. In Madrid, it was particularly important for participants who could not walk long distances or whose destinations were not accessible on foot. This lower preference, especially in Munich, indicates that public transport is often a compensatory mode rather than a first choice, used when walking/wheeling becomes unfeasible due to spatial or design barriers.

‘Public transport [because] I have reduced mobility and I can’t walk long distances without stopping’ (Person with physical disability, Madrid).

This highlights how modal choice reflects a negotiation between physical barriers (curbs, crossings) and perceptual constraints (fear of getting lost, uncertainty), showing the interplay between design features and embodied experience.

Participants also valued public transport for being faster and for offering a more manageable way to deal with obstacles in the urban environment, such as slopes or uneven terrain. Limited street and urban accessibility also emerged as a reason for choosing this mode, showing that participants often adapt their choices to compensate for design and infrastructure shortcomings. These findings align with Lizana et al. [71], highlighting that modal preferences frequently reflect responses to spatial barriers rather than personal preference:

‘Public transport because […] I feel safer on the public transport. Sometimes streets end up and you have to cross the street to go on straight […], or there may be no lower curbs everywhere to point out the crossings. […]’ (Person with visual disability, Madrid).

Personal abilities were highlighted in both cities as a key factor shaping how participants experienced and moved through urban spaces. Some respondents relied on structured or assisted options due to their physical capacity or stamina, illustrating how individual characteristics interact with street layouts, public space design, and accessibility features, as emphasised by Mace [28]. This underscores the importance of inclusive urban design that accommodates diverse abilities and supports independent engagement with the city:

‘Public Transport, the wheelchair is too tedious.’ (Person with a physical and cognitive disability, Munich).

‘Public Transport [helps me] avoid pain and tiredness’ (Person with physical disability, Madrid).

Perceived control over the environment emerged as a key factor shaping how participants engaged with urban spaces. This finding aligns with universal design principles, which emphasise predictability and intuitive navigation, and demonstrates that perceptual confidence is as critical as physical accessibility in shaping mobility decisions. The stress associated with navigating the built environment—whether due to limited access, uncertainty in reaching destinations [83], or sensory overload from crowded and complex spaces [84]—directly influenced their choices. According to universal design standards, environments should support predictability and user control, highlighting that confidence in navigating the city safely and reliably is a crucial aspect of inclusive urban design:

‘Public transport is easier in terms of obstacles and there are fewer chances of getting lost. […] (Person with visual disability, Madrid).

A smaller proportion of respondents (7.8% in Madrid and 2.4% in Munich) indicated that their choice depended on situational factors rather than a fixed preference, including route complexity, weather conditions, and variations in individual abilities. These findings highlight the contingent nature of urban navigation and underscore the relevance of universal design principles, particularly the principle of Flexibility in Use [28], which emphasises providing multiple ways for participants to interact with the environment according to their abilities and preferences. Designing environments that can adapt to varying conditions supports inclusive, resilient urban spaces capable of responding to diverse abilities and situational constraints:

‘Strolling when the weather is nice.’ (Person with visual and physical disability, Munich).

‘If the route is easy and familiar, I prefer to go walking; otherwise, I would probably choose public transport’ (Person with visual disability, Madrid).

‘If I am not pretty tired, I would go walking that day’ (Person with cognitive disability, Madrid).

Thus, choices about navigating urban spaces can depend on daily energy, weather, or route complexity, especially for unfamiliar itineraries. While universal design has long highlighted such variability [28,59], it is largely absent in proximity approaches. By showing how situational factors shape decisions of persons with disabilities in Madrid and Munich, this study highlights that proximity alone does not ensure inclusive urban experiences. These situational decisions illustrate the need for flexible, multimodal environments that accommodate fluctuating abilities—an aspect largely absent from proximity planning, which assumes stable, uniform mobility capacities.

Finally, in Munich, 9.8% of participants reported using bicycles or other soft mobility devices for daily travel, even when it was not present among the options, while no respondents in Madrid mentioned it. The presence of supportive infrastructure and access to adapted vehicles likely made cycling a viable means of inclusive, short-distance movement [8]. This contrasts with Madrid, which reinforces that soft mobility uptake depends less on individual willingness and more on the structural affordances of the urban environment.

In some cases, cycling was chosen specifically because public transport was inaccessible, suggesting that mode selection often reflects adaptation to barriers rather than preference. Bicycles provide practical advantages in terms of ease and independence:

‘I prefer to get around with my handbike (which is attached to my wheelchair). This is the least strenuous for me and I’m not reliant on the functionality of the elevators to the subways.’ (Person with a physical and hearing disability, Munich).

This example shows how adaptive devices can mitigate infrastructural gaps, but only when cities provide continuous, safe, and legible networks, conditions that are more present in Munich than in Madrid.

Overall, participants’ preferences were strongly shaped by how well each option accommodated their physical needs, environmental conditions, and familiarity with the space. Importantly, this study provides original insight by documenting how persons with disabilities strategically use soft mobility devices to navigate urban environments, highlighting adaptation strategies that are often overlooked in proximity-based planning frameworks. These findings reinforce that spatial proximity alone does not ensure accessibility. Comfort, confidence, and independence emerged as key criteria guiding choices, highlighting gaps in inclusivity and user-centred design within the proximity city paradigm [10,85,86]. These findings demonstrate that modal behaviour is shaped by the interaction between design features, perceptual constraints, and embodied abilities, rather than by spatial proximity alone.

4.3. Experiential and Perceptual Mobility Constraints

Building on the previous sections and addressing Objective 3, it is important to examine the experiential and perceptual barriers that affect the usability of proximity-based environments. Even when services are nearby, respondents noted obstacles that limit independent engagement. Figure 5 presents these barriers in Madrid and Munich, combining predefined options with open-ended responses. Linking reporting experiences to specific special and design shortcomings allows for a detailed understanding of how everyday mobility is shaped by continuity, legibility, and adaptability of the urban space.

The barriers most frequently reported point to clear shortcomings in the design and organisation of urban space. Irregular paving was mentioned by 30 respondents in Madrid and 17 in Munich, followed by narrow sidewalks, bollards or misplaced elements, conflicts with soft mobility devices, and insufficient signage or information. Steps and stairs were also repeatedly mentioned, forcing detours or reliance on assistance. Many of these obstacles were associated with discontinuities in design, poor maintenance, or unclear spatial layouts, highlighting environments that fail to meet the principles of universal design [28,33]. These findings indicate that destinations may be close in distance but remain difficult to reach due to unpredictable hazards such as temporary obstructions or tripping risks [84].

Conflicts with soft mobility devices were particularly highlighted in open-ended responses, underlining the significant impact of shared or poorly organised urban spaces on inclusivity:

‘Too many parked cars and scooters on sidewalks.’ (Person with physical disability, Munich).

‘I believe vehicles not respecting the pedestrian areas […] [is] a very important topic’ (Person with physical disability, Madrid).

In Madrid, the presence of restaurant furniture and open spaces emerged as a significant barrier, with calls for tactile paving to address this:

‘For blind people, I believe the worst [barriers] are terraces [restaurant furniture], […] and open spaces ([…] tactile paving can be used to have [spatial] references’ (Person with visual disability, Madrid).

Contextual and environmental conditions were reported to be relevant constraints. Frost and ice on sidewalks were reported by the sole respondent in Munich, reflecting its colder winters, while overcrowding was a frequent concern in Madrid, mentioned by 15 of 18 participants, linked to its outdoor-oriented urban culture. Nighttime lighting was reported as more problematic in Munich, with 9 of 13 participants noting it, whereas excessive sunlight was highlighted only in Madrid, cited by all eight affected participants. Steep slopes and ramps primarily affected Madrid respondents, underscoring the impact of topography, while the lack of green areas was mentioned by all ten respondents in Munich but not in Madrid. These conditions shaped how participants navigated streets and, in some cases, limited short trips or deterred street use altogether [55,87].

Non-accessible crossings were also identified as major obstacles for people with visual, physical, hearing, or cognitive impairments [88,89]. Comments emphasised that even a single inaccessible point could significantly affect the experience of pedestrians or wheeling participants:

‘There are no lowerings [low curbs] in the sidewalks and that hurts my back. The lowerings (3–5 cm) are too high, even if the building regulation prescribes this!’ (Person with physical disability, Munich).

‘[There should also be] acoustic crossings during the night’ (Person with visual disability, Madrid).

The lack of accessible public toilets emerged as a recurrent qualitative barrier. Respondents in both cities emphasised the need for predictable, frequent, and dignified access to essential facilities. This is particularly relevant when navigating longer or more demanding routes 28 [90]:

‘Something that is really important for a person with disability is the existence of public toilets in the city […]’ (Person with physical disability, Madrid).

‘[There is no] toilet [in the] subway’ (Person with visual and physical disability, Munich).

Participants also noted the perceived inaction of municipal authorities in addressing long-standing accessibility issues, framing these barriers as rooted in planning and management rather than technical limitations [10,91]:

‘I requested the City Hall of Madrid to fix the accessibility of my street, and it took them six years to do the work. […] in many cases we have to take the road instead with the resulting risk of being run over.’ (Person with physical disability, Madrid).

‘More regulation [is needed]’ (Person with physical disability, Munich).

Overall, these findings demonstrate that evaluating proximity solely in terms of physical distance is insufficient to capture the inclusivity of urban environments. Physical, perceptual, and contextual obstacles constrain independent engagement with proximity environments, even when destinations are nearby. This study provides empirical evidence as an experience condition, rather than as a purely spatial metric.

5. Discussion

5.1. Proximity as Accessible Experience: Beyond Distance-Based Planning

The results presented in Section 4.1. challenge the central assumption about proximity-oriented planning approaches that spatial closeness, measured primarily through distances or time thresholds, is sufficient to foster green everyday mobility. Proximity-based models, including the 15-min city, have largely operationalised accessibility through spatial efficiency, land-use mix, and density of the network [4,6,34,35]. While these pillars have helped advance in sustainable public space use, liveability and health agendas [7,15,92], the findings of Madrid and Munich reveal important limitations derived from lived accessibility conditions in the context of urban proximity. These differences reflect the historical, cultural, and governance contexts outlined in Section 2, reinforcing that proximity models cannot be transferred without contextual recalibration.

Across both case studies, modal behaviour did not reflect free choice, but rather a continuous process of adaptation to environmental constraints. The persistent reliance on public transport promoting environmentally friendly commuting among proximity-based models confronts the findings that these recurrently require compensatory mobility strategies due to barriers and obstacles. Parallelly, in some cases, public transport and private vehicles tend to be a resource to overcome walking or wheeling options when the public space becomes unreliable. This duality aligns with emerging critiques that highlight the gap between proximity as a spatial metric and accessibility as an experience condition [27,37]. The variety of options arises as a key component for users to choose depending on their preferred means, and offers the flexibility to achieve an inclusive design according to the 7 Principles of Universal Design theory [28]. In this sense, proximity policies risk overestimating inclusion when accessibility is only treated as a derivative outcome rather than a constitutive driver in urban planning.

This distinction is particularly relevant in the context of healthy integration of persons of different ages and abilities. Traditional proximity frameworks tend to assume a relatively homogeneous body capability of navigating the public space, overlooking the cumulative effects of fatigue, uncertainty and risk, all of which have been documented to be key deterrents in inclusive design research [11,28,29,33]. The empirical evidence presented in this study shows that accessibility normally fails at single, isolated nodes or obstacles, such as inaccessible stations, unsafe crossings or discontinuous routes. These can invalidate the functional value of proximity altogether, reinforcing findings from research on perceived and relational accessibility [22].

The concept of “proximity as accessible experience” builds on these insights by reframing proximity not as a fixed spatial attribute, but as a relational condition derived from the interaction of the urban form and the citizens that participate in city life. Rather than asking whether the variety of services is located in a given radius, this study proposes that planning must focus on whether everyday journeys can be completed under safety, reliability and independent conditions for different profiles. This approach resonates in relational and justice-oriented perspectives on mobility and territory, which emphasise experience, power relations, and unequal exposure to urban constraints [11,17,31].

Importantly, the findings also demonstrate that proximity-oriented outcomes are not inherently inclusive, even in cities with strong active cultures or advanced transport systems. As shown in both Madrid and Munich, proximity-based environments may simultaneously reduce travel distances while reinforcing dependence on compensatory behaviours for persons with disabilities. This observation challenges the universal interpretations of proximity models [19,38] and supports calls for more nuanced, human-centred approaches integrating universal design principles from the outset of the planning process [13,16,32].

By conceptualising proximity as an accessible experience, this study contributes to urban theory by shifting the analytical focus from spatial efficiency to lived usability. It moves beyond checklist-based accessibility approaches, which are often limited to isolated infrastructure elements [30,45], towards an understanding of accessibility as a dynamic factor of the public space interaction and navigation. This unfolds across modes, paces and time. In doing so, the framework provides a critical lens for reassessing proximity-oriented urban models and their capacity to deliver equitable urban environments and promote healthy living for diverse bodies and abilities.

5.2. Design, Perception, and Governance: Explaining Modal Behaviour in Proximity-Oriented Environments

The results presented in Section 4.2 demonstrate that modal behaviour in proximity-oriented environments cannot be explained through spatial or time metrics. Instead, everyday journeys are the result of a dynamic interaction among perception, design and governance. This finding directly challenges dominant interpretations of proximity-based planning, which continue to prioritise distance while underestimating how accessibility is experienced in practice [4,6].

Across both Madrid and Munich, participants consistently described how micro-scale design conditions—such as curb continuity, crossing design, surface quality, and route legibility—conditioned whether proximity translated into usable access. These findings reinforce critiques of proximity models that treat accessibility as a derivative outcome of compactness and independent urban features rather than assessing experience [10,27,37]. In this sense, proximity operates as a fragile condition that can easily be disrupted by localised design failures or unforeseen barriers.

Perceptual factors played an equally decisive role. Feelings of uncertainty, stress, fear of getting lost, or lack of control over barriers repeatedly influence modal choices. This often leads to participants avoiding theoretically “proximate” routes or modes. This aligns with research on perceived accessibility, which shows that subjective evaluations of safety, predictability and effort frequently outweigh objective distance measures [22,25]. The findings also resonate with a relational perspective on mobility justice, which emphasises that accessibility is co-produced through embodied experience, social expectations and spatial arrangements [11,17].

Importantly, public transport emerged not as a preferred component of proximity-oriented living, but as a compensatory mechanism when walking or wheeling became unreliable. This compensatory role reveals a structural contradiction within proximity planning: while proximity aims to reduce dependence on motorised transport, inaccessible pedestrian environments and discontinuous public space can instead reinforce reliance on structured or assisted modes. Similar tensions have been identified in critiques of walkability and last-millimetre problems within proximity frameworks [37,40].

Differences between Madrid and Munich further illustrate how governance and long-term planning cultures foster the inclusivity of proximity-based environments. Munich’s higher uptake of soft mobility devices among persons with disabilities reflects sustained investment in cycling infrastructure, network continuity, and adaptive mobility solutions for persons of different ages and abilities [8,42]. In contrast, the absence of soft mobility use in Madrid suggests that proximity-oriented policies, when not accompanied by inclusive design standards and infrastructural continuity, may fail to support an inclusive and healthy use of the public space by all people. These contrasts echo broader comparative studies showing that proximity outcomes are shaped as much by governance regimes and planning traditions as by spatial form alone [9,39].

From a universal design perspective, the findings highlight a persistent gap between accessibility that is often addressed through checklist-based audits focused on isolated elements [30,45], and participants’ experiences show that accessibility emerges across entire journeys, where small discontinuities accumulate into decisive barriers. This supports long-standing arguments within universal design and disability studies that accessibility must be understood as a relational condition rather than a static attribute of individual spaces [28,29,33]. These findings support the need for mandatory experiential accessibility audits as part of any proximity-oriented planning evaluation, ensuring that design intentions translate into inclusive everyday use.

By foregrounding design, perception, and governance as co-determinants of modal behaviour, this study advances the concept of proximity as accessible experience. The findings suggest that proximity models’ promises can only be possible through a paradigm shift—from spatial efficiency towards experiential co-design. Such a shift requires embedding accessibility audits, user-centred evaluation, and disability perspectives as mandatory components of proximity-oriented strategies [16,31].

In this regard, the study contributes to ongoing debates on the future of proximity cities by demonstrating that inclusive accessibility cannot be retrofitted through distance-based models alone. Without systematic attention to micro-scale design, perceptual confidence, and adaptive public space needs, proximity risks reproducing the very inequalities it seeks to address: promoting healthy and green cities for everyone. Conversely, when proximity is conceived as an accessible experience, it offers a powerful framework for reorienting urban design and planning towards equitable, resilient, and genuinely inclusive cities.

5.3. Discussion: Experiential and Perceptual Constraints in Proximity-Based Urban Environments

The findings presented in Section 4.3 challenge a core assumption underlying proximity-oriented urban models: that reducing spatial distance is sufficient to ensure inclusive access. While frameworks such as the 15-min city emphasise temporal and spatial closeness to services [3,7,19,34], the empirical evidence from Madrid and Munich demonstrates that proximity does not translate into accessibility when experiential and perceptual barriers remain unsolved. These results reinforce growing critiques that proximity-based planning risks oversimplifying accessibility by privileging measurable distance over lived experience [27,79,86].

The reported barriers—irregular paving, discontinuities, inaccessible crossings, environmental stressors, and the absence of essential facilities—align with long-standing universal design research highlighting the centrality of continuity, predictability, and tolerance for error in enabling independent mobility [28,29,33,59]. However, the contribution of this study lies in demonstrating how these principles are systematically undermined within proximity-based environments that are otherwise considered “successful” in spatial terms. Even in areas where respondents did not reported lack of proximal uses, the public space was shown as fragmented, uncertain, or conditional, echoing calls to move beyond abstract accessibility metrics toward experiential and relational understandings of access [11,22,25].

The comparative dimension between Madrid and Munich further illustrates that experiential accessibility is not only shaped by physical design but also by climatic conditions, urban culture, and governance practices. Differences in lighting, overcrowding, topography, or exposure to extreme weather reflect how contextual factors mediate the usability of proximity environments in everyday life [13,55,87]. These findings resonate with recent work on inclusive accessibility, which argues that spatial proximity must be evaluated alongside temporal variability, environmental stress, and other contextual factors [21,24,26]. In this sense, proximity is revealed as a dynamic condition negotiated daily, rather than a fixed spatial attribute. This shifts the debate from checklist-based accessibility towards experiential co-design, where usability is evaluated through lived experience rather than formal compliance.

The prominence of perceptual barriers (e.g., fear of getting lost, uncertainty at crossings, stress generated by unpredictable obstacles) supports the argument that accessibility is as much cognitive and emotional as it is physical [29,68,82,83]. This aligns with disability justice and mobility justice perspectives that conceptualise accessibility as a relational outcome shaped by interactions between bodies, infrastructures, and institutional arrangements [68,91]. From this perspective, the absence of accessible public toilets, or the failure to maintain curb ramps and crossings, becomes more than a technical oversight: it represents a systemic exclusion embedded in planning priorities.

These findings also expose a tension between proximity narratives and governance realities. While proximity models are often promoted as integrative and human-centred [6,20], participants’ accounts reveal persistent institutional delays, regulatory gaps, and fragmented responsibility for accessibility improvements. Other studies have also echoed that proximity-based strategies may be rebranding existing urban policies without adequately addressing structural inequalities, which is becoming more and more important in the current demographic situations [10,37,86]. Without proper inclusive integration and long-term maintenance strategies, proximity risks becoming a perpetuating exclusion paradigm rather than a transformative planning tool adapted to the 21st century needs.

The results suggest that proximity-based models must be complemented by experiential evaluation tools that capture perceptual barriers, situational variability, and the cumulative impact of minor design failures. This supports recent calls for integrating universal design and inclusive accessibility frameworks into proximity planning from the outset, rather than treating accessibility as a secondary or corrective measure [26,36].

5.4. Policy Recommendations

From an architectural perspective, these findings underscore the role of micro-scale design decisions—such as surface continuity, spatial hierarchy, and interface management between movement modes—in determining whether proximity-oriented environments are usable in practice. Architects and urban designers play a critical role in translating proximity principles into inclusive spatial configurations that support autonomy, predictability, and comfort for diverse bodies. The following recommendations translate research findings into design-oriented strategies for inclusive, proximity-oriented urban environments, categorised by the immediacy of their implementation (

Table 4. Policy recommendations to implement inclusive proximity-based models, categorised by the immediacy of implementation. Source: own elaboration.

Immediacy	Actions
Short-term Actions	Address Maintenance and Walkability Obstructions: Regularly maintain sidewalks, remove walkability obstructions (e.g., lighting posts, bins…), and ensure curb cuts are free of barriers. These simple measures can significantly improve daily mobility and prevent people from encountering unnecessary challenges while navigating urban spaces. Conduct experiential audits. Walk-along or roll-along assessments with diverse participants can identify barriers overlooked by maps or metrics, including pavement quality, crossings, and street furniture. Insights guide interventions at the street and block scales, improving comfort and safety. Enhance wayfinding and street-level information. Legible signage, maps, and multi-format tools (plain language, iconography) support sensory and cognitive diversity, fostering autonomy and reframing proximity as an accessible experience.
Medium-term Actions	4. Reallocate Street Space for Mobility Diversity: Adjust street layouts to better accommodate all mobility modes (walking, cycling, wheelchairs, etc.). This can involve reallocating road space or creating shared streets, which may require coordination with local traffic planning and medium-term investment in infrastructure. 5. Design for environmental contingencies. Address climate, topography, and seasonal changes—such as frost management in Munich or shaded areas in Madrid—and ensure slopes and surfaces support effortless navigation across streets, blocks, and neighbourhoods. 6. Integrate accessible public facilities. Provide frequent, predictable, and dignified access to restrooms, seating, and shelter, supporting continuous engagement and well-being while aligning with the universal design principle of Tolerance for Error [28].
Long-term Actions	7. Integrate inclusive design in urban policy. Streets, sidewalks, and public spaces should be designed for diverse abilities from the outset, incorporating ramps, sufficient widths, tactile cues, and obstruction-free pathways. Embedding these measures structurally ensures continuous accessibility rather than retroactive fixes [28]. This requires significant structural change and long-term investment but is essential for ensuring that new developments and urban designs are universally accessible from the start. 8. Engage care networks and communities. Caregivers and frequent users provide insights into access challenges, informing micro-scale adjustments (curb cuts, ramps) and neighbourhood-scale planning for inclusive street layouts and public facilities. 9. Monitor disaggregated accessibility data. Collect and analyze user-reported barriers by ability type to inform iterative design improvements and ensure inclusive urban experiences.

):

Together, these measures highlight that proximity is more than spatial distance—it is an accessible experience shaped by design quality, perceptual clarity, and procedural support. Implementing them enables urban environments that are truly inclusive, resilient, and conducive to well-being for all citizens.

5.5. Limitations and Future Research

This study is limited by its exploratory nature and qualitative design. Focusing on two European cities, the findings highlight context-specific insights into how persons with disabilities navigate urban environments and encounter inclusivity barriers, but are not generalizable. The sample engaged underrepresented groups, providing rich experiential data, yet its size restricts statistical analyses and disaggregated comparisons. Future research should expand to additional cities and populations to examine how geographic, cultural, and policy contexts influence accessibility and inclusivity in proximity-based urban design.

While reported experiential barriers varied by disability type—for instance, participants with physical impairments emphasised issues with curbs and elevators, while those with visual impairments highlighted challenges related to signage and uneven sidewalks—the study did not disaggregate data by disability category. This decision reflects the principles of inclusive design, which aim to create accessible environments for all users, regardless of their specific conditions. As such, the study approached barriers from a holistic perspective, acknowledging that accessibility challenges can affect anyone, including individuals with temporary conditions or those who may occasionally need extra support. Although a more detailed cross-disability analysis might offer further insights into how specific impairments uniquely interact with urban spaces, this study prioritised an inclusive, broad-spectrum approach. Future studies could incorporate more targeted data disaggregation to explore these differences in greater detail.

Data were also constrained by predefined questions that offered literature-based options, although open-ended responses provided valuable complementary insights. Future studies could explore alternative methodologies that capture a broader range of experiences and assess the long-term effectiveness of proximity policies.

6. Conclusions

Drawing on 65 interviews in Madrid and 49 in Munich, this exploratory study examined how persons of diverse abilities experience urban environments shaped by under proximity-oriented planning models, such as the 15-min city. While these models promise environmental, social, and economic benefits associated with integral sustainability, the findings reveal persistent mismatches between spatial provision and actual inclusivity. Physical, perceptual, and procedural barriers expose a structural disconnection between the intentions of proximity policies and the lived experience of urban accessibility. By reframing proximity not merely as spatial distance but as an accessible experience, this research demonstrated that urban design must integrate human-centred and inclusive considerations to foster wellbeing and meaningful participation in city life.

Applying a combined lens of proximity planning, inclusive urban experience, and universal design allowed the study to identify specific architectural, infrastructural, and cultural factors shaping independent engagement with the urban environment. Barriers included uneven or obstructed pathways, discontinuous tactile cues, inaccessible crossings, and inadequate street-level information, all of which limit autonomy and the ability to safely and comfortably navigate urban space, despite formal proximity-oriented policies. These findings highlight that accessibility failures at the micro-scale can invalidate at the urban scale.

The comparative analysis across two European cities further highlighted the role of contextual conditions, such as climate (e.g., frost in Munich), topography (e.g., Munich’s relatively flat terrain versus Madrid’s steep slopes), and cultural practices (e.g., intensive street usage in Madrid), which significantly affect how proximity measures are experienced. These findings indicate that replicating proximity strategies without adapting to local conditions risks reproducing exclusion and undermining the intended well-being benefits.

Differences in experiences across ability groups underscore that inclusivity cannot be assumed simply because urban amenities are nearby. Variations in physical effort, sensory processing, or cognitive load reveal the need for design approaches that prioritise comfort, predictability, and independence as core objectives.

Overall, the persistence of barriers despite formal policy adoption suggests that proximity-city models may insufficiently accommodate diverse abilities, limiting the potential for inclusive engagement and the associated health and well-being benefits. Future research should expand the analysis to additional cities and populations, develop experiential and perception-based accessibility indicators, and investigate long-term changes in how inclusive design interventions affect lived urban experience.

For architectural and urban design practice, the findings demonstrate that proximity-based models cannot deliver inclusive wellbeing outcomes without sustained attention to design continuity, spatial legibility, and the everyday usability of public space. Treating proximity as an accessible experience provides a design-oriented framework for aligning sustainability goals with social equity, offering a more robust foundation for future inclusive urban environments.