A roundtable on the social aspects of mobility and transport in human-centric cities at the Smart Mobility Summit of Cities and Regions

Mobility needs differ significantly depending on age, gender, income, disability, and location. Cities are increasingly aware that the benefits of smart mobility must be anchored in principles of fairness, inclusiveness, and accessibility. This requires a shift from a “one-size-fits-all” approach towards more tailored and user-centric planning.  

As Europe accelerates toward greener, smarter mobility solutions, ensuring that these transitions are inclusive, equitable, and socially responsive is of utmost importance. The danger that innovation could deepen existing inequalities, by excluding certain groups, privileging already well-served areas, or creating new digital and economic barriers, must be avoided.

A roundtable on the social aspects of mobility and transport in human-centric cities during the Smart Mobility Summit of Cities and Regions highlighted that inclusiveness is not a by-product of innovation but a challenge that must be actively addressed. ‘Mobility justice’ was the guiding principle in the discussions to understand how mobility systems impact different groups by exploring: how decisions are made, whose needs are recognized, and how benefits and burdens are distributed.

These questions translate into three interconnected dimensions. ‘Procedural justice’ concerns fairness in decision-making processes and participation. ‘Recognition justice’ focuses on acknowledging diverse users with different needs and rejecting the idea of a single “average user.” ‘Distributional justice’ examines how access, costs, and impacts of mobility systems are shared.  

Procedural justice: From consultation to co-creation

Inclusive outcomes depend on inclusive processes. Cities are increasingly recognising that traditional consultation methods are insufficient and are experimenting with more participatory and transparent approaches.

For instance, Tallinn has demonstrated how large-scale citizen engagement, reaching a significant portion of its population, can directly inform the development of MaaS systems. This approach transforms participation into a meaningful input for decision-making rather than a formal exercise.

In smaller municipalities such as Kifissia, participatory “walkshops” are being used to bring planners and residents together in real urban environments. This hands-on method exposes everyday barriers, such as inaccessible sidewalks or unsafe crossings, that are often overlooked in conventional planning.

Digital tools are increasingly part of this procedural shift. Experiences shared from Austria and the Netherlands highlighted how digital twins and continuous data collection can support ongoing monitoring of mobility systems. The key challenge is ensuring that data-driven approaches do not exclude those less represented in digital systems. Scaling participation while maintaining inclusiveness continues to be a critical hurdle.

To overcome the risk of excluding those with limited digital access or skills, regions like Oxfordshire collect more inclusive, intersectional feedback, particularly from younger and more vulnerable groups. Cities such as Rzeszów are focusing on measurable indicators to track the real impact of mobility transitions, strengthening transparency and accountability.

Recognition justice: Designing for diverse people and realities

Recognition justice requires a deeper understanding of the diverse persons and realities that shape mobility needs. This is to ensure that mobility systems continue to be designed for the ‘average user’.

Applying intersectional approaches, such as in Oxfordshire, can reveal how factors like age and gender influence mobility patterns. This helps identify differences between, for example, daily commuters, elderly residents, or individuals with caregiving responsibilities.

Transport authorities in regions such as the West Midlands and Malta have also stressed that accessibility goes beyond physical infrastructure. Language barriers, digital literacy, and affordability all shape how accessible mobility systems truly are.

In larger metropolitan contexts such as Istanbul, recognition justice is closely linked to climate vulnerability. Certain populations are more exposed to pollution, heat, and service disruptions, highlighting the need to integrate social equity into climate and mobility strategies. Investments in cycling infrastructure or greener public spaces can address both environmental and social concerns when implemented inclusively.

Despite these advances, challenges remain in capturing diverse needs systematically. Data gaps and the complexity of intersectional analysis can limit the effectiveness of recognition efforts, particularly for underrepresented groups.

Distributional justice: Balancing benefits and burdens

The third dimension of mobility justice, distributional justice, focuses on whether mobility systems deliver fair outcomes. Discussions at the Summit illustrated how cities are attempting to rebalance access, infrastructure, and environmental benefits.

Rzeszów, for example, is working to reduce reliance on private cars by improving public transport so that travel times become comparable. This represents a redistribution of time and convenience toward users who depend on public transport.  

Konya’s expansion of cycling infrastructure demonstrates how sustainable mobility investments can improve quality of life, though ensuring equitable access across neighbourhoods remains a concern.

Tallinn’s MaaS development highlights both opportunities and risks. While integrating transport modes can enhance accessibility, there are concerns about affordability and digital exclusion, particularly for low-income users or those without smartphones.

Geographical disparities must also be addresses. Ensuring reliable access beyond city centres is essential to avoid reinforcing inequalities between urban cores and peripheral areas.

Environmental benefits are similarly uneven. Access to clean air, green spaces, and safe mobility routes varies across neighbourhoods, making distributional justice a central consideration in urban planning.

Opportunities and systemic hurdles

The transition toward inclusive mobility systems presents both opportunities and challenges. Cities are increasingly leveraging participatory methods, digital tools, and integrated approaches to improve responsiveness and inclusiveness. At the same time, several systemic hurdles must be addressed: 

• Digital divide: Expanding digital mobility services risks excluding those without access or skills.
• Governance complexity: Coordinating across city, regional, and EU levels remains difficult.  
• Uneven investment: Peripheral areas may lag behind without targeted policies.
• Measurement gaps: Social equity impacts are harder to quantify than environmental outcomes.
• Balancing speed and inclusiveness: Rapid transitions may overlook vulnerable groups if inclusiveness is not embedded early.  

Addressing these challenges requires integrating mobility justice into planning and aligning efforts with EU frameworks such as the European Green Deal and Sustainable Mobility Strategy. 

Key takeaways

• Ensuring inclusive, human-centric mobility is a complex challenge that requires deliberate action rather than relying on technological progress alone.  
• Mobility justice, encompassing procedural, recognition and distributional justice, is an important guiding framework to address this challenge.  
• Overcoming challenges such as digital exclusion, geographic disparities, and governance complexity is essential to achieving a just and inclusive mobility transition.  

This article was written based on a report provided by Dr Floridea Di Ciommo, CambiaMO (moderator), and Dr Tamara Djukic, ERTICO-ITS Europe (rapporteur), on the roundtable discussion at the Smart Mobility Summit of Cities and Regions on the topic ‘Social aspects of mobility and transport in human centric cities’. 

Participants:

Observers:

This article is part 4 of a 4-part series.

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3