As cities grapple with climate change, congestion, and rising public health concerns, the way we move through urban environments is becoming increasingly important. Largely due to the overwhelming dependence on personal vehicles, transport continues to be a leading contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. (Transportation Sector Emissions, 2026). (above image: AI generated via magnifici)

As a solution, walking, cycling, and new micromobility options, including e-scooters and shared bikes, are now receiving significant funding for ‘ active transport’ at the city level.

While these transport options are frequently considered potential remedies for the intersection of climate, social, and health concerns, the principal question is: are they capable of changing urban mobility?

More than just lower emissions

The environmental benefits of active transport are well established. Walking and cycling produce virtually no operational emissions and require far less urban space than private vehicles.

Active transport brings a number of benefits to a city, including cleaner air, less traffic, and reduced noise pollution. It can also help make cities more compact and more pedestrian-friendly than car-friendly. (Strategies for healthy and sustainable transport, n.d.)

However, these environmental benefits are not automatic. According to Fraunhofer ISI, the environmental benefit of escooters depends on what type of transport they are replacing, and when a car trip is substituted with an e-scooter ride, the reduction in emissions can be significant. If it replaces a walk or public transport journey, the environmental benefits become less clear.

A public health opportunity

Active transport is not only good for the environment—it is also good for people.

Regular walking and cycling help reduce the risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and other chronic health conditions. Aside from physical health, active travel has also been linked to improving mental well-being, lower stress levels, and improved social connections. (Baran et al., 2024).

Cities designed for active transport often become liveable places, with safer streets, better public spaces, and greater opportunities for social interaction. In an era of increasing loneliness, walking and cycling reconnect people with public life and strengthen community ties.

Infrastructure matters more than motivation

One of the strongest themes throughout the research is that transport behaviour is determined by urban environments.

People are far more likely to walk or cycle when safe, connected infrastructure exists. Protected bike lanes, pedestrian crossings, traffic calming measures, and integrated public transport connections consistently increase participation and support broader shifts in transport behaviour.

On the other hand, unsafe roads, fragmented networks, and poor transport infrastructure discourage active transport. People tend to make transport choices that reflect the conditions around them. This contradicts the assumption that people are more inclined to make choices based on their own preferences.

The micromobility debate

One of the rapidly expanding forms of transportation in cities is micromobility.

Urban transport has been made faster and more efficient through e-scooters and bike-share systems. (Nawaro, 2021, pp. 614-630)

As cities grapple with climate change, congestion, and rising public health concerns, the way we move through urban environments is becoming increasingly important. Largely due to the overwhelming dependence on personal vehicles, transport continues to be a leading contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. (Transportation Sector Emissions, 2026)

As a solution, walking, cycling, and new micromobility options, including e-scooters and shared bikes, are now receiving significant funding for ‘ active transport’ at the city level.

While these transport options are frequently considered potential remedies for the intersection of climate, social, and health concerns, the principal question is: are they capable of changing urban mobility?

More Than Just Lower Emissions

The environmental benefits of active transport are well established. Walking and cycling produce virtually no operational emissions and require far less urban space than private vehicles.

Active transport brings a number of benefits to a city, including cleaner air, less traffic, and reduced noise pollution. It can also help make cities more compact and more pedestrian-friendly than car-friendly. (Strategies for healthy and sustainable transport, n.d.)

However, these environmental benefits are not automatic. According to Fraunhofer ISI, the environmental benefit of escooters depends on what type of transport they are replacing, and when a car trip is substituted with an e-scooter ride, the reduction in emissions can be significant. If it replaces a walk or public transport journey, the environmental benefits become less clear.

A Public Health Opportunity

Active transport is not only good for the environment—it is also good for people.

Regular walking and cycling help reduce the risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and other chronic health conditions. Aside from physical health, active travel has also been linked to improving mental well-being, lower stress levels, and improved social connections. (Baran et al., 2024)

Cities designed for active transport often become liveable places, with safer streets, better public spaces, and greater opportunities for social interaction. In an era of increasing loneliness, walking and cycling reconnect people with public life and strengthen community ties.

Infrastructure Matters More Than Motivation

One of the strongest themes throughout the research is that transport behaviour is determined by urban environments.

People are far more likely to walk or cycle when safe, connected infrastructure exists. Protected bike lanes, pedestrian crossings, traffic calming measures, and integrated public transport connections consistently increase participation and support broader shifts in transport behaviour.

On the other hand, unsafe roads, fragmented networks, and poor transport infrastructure discourage active transport. People tend to make transport choices that reflect the conditions around them. This contradicts the assumption that people are more inclined to make choices based on their own preferences.

The Micromobility Debate

One of the rapidly expanding forms of transportation in cities is micromobility.

Urban transport has been made faster and more efficient through e-scooters and bike-share systems. (Nawaro, 2021, pp. 614-630)

According to research by Rachel Manning and Courtney Babb, micromobility systems such as small electric personal mobility devices support short-distance travel and help people connect to traditional public transport, which can reduce reliance on private vehicles.

However, people are not in agreement on whether these transport systems are sustainable.
According to a systematic review published in Sustainability, there is ongoing debate about whether the environmental impacts associated with the entire life cycle of shared electric micro-mobility systems—including manufacturing, battery production, disposal, and safety issues—are justified. Research also shows uncertainty about whether these systems are replacing trips taken by private vehicles, walking, or public transportation.

To maximise efficiency, these transport systems need to be a part of an extensive network of transport systems. Instead of being a means of transport in their own right, micromobility systems should be part of a larger transport network

Who Gets Left Behind?

One of the main concerns presented in the literature is equity.

Access to active transport is not uniformly available. Areas in the Inner-city areas often have access to high-quality cycling infrastructure and shared mobility services, while the outer suburbs remain dependent on cars.

People from lower-income communities, older adults, people with disabilities, and women experience compounded barriers to safety and access to services.

An environmentally sustainable transport system is not enough. Social sustainability must also be considered.

The Bigger Picture

Active transport works best when supported by integrated planning.

Across the evidence, its benefits depend on coordinated land-use planning, public transport investment, supportive policy systems, and efforts to reduce car dependency.

This is the key lesson: walking, cycling, and micromobility work best as part of a broader urban strategy. Walking, cycling, and micromobility alone will not solve urban transport challenges.

The research points to a broader approach in which coordinated land-use planning, investment in public transport, supportive policy systems, and reduced car dependency work together. (Forum, n.d.) The future of sustainable mobility isn ‘t about replacing one mode of transport with another, but about creating cities where walking, cycling, and public transport become the primary mode of mobility. As cities evolve and adapt to changing environments, active transport is integral to sustainable urban development, and systems thinking is needed to achieve greater impact. Ultimately, sustainable mobility is not just about moving people more efficiently. It is about creating healthier, more connected, and more liveable cities.

By Nesrin Saleh

Nesrin Saleh is a Master of Architecture student at Swinburne University whose interests include sustainable transport, urban design, and creating healthier, more connected communities through thoughtful planning.

Bibliography

( 2 0 2 6 ) . T R A N S P O R T A T I O N S E C T O R E M I S S I O N S . U . S . E N V I R O N M E N T A L P R O T E C T I O N A G E N C Y . H T T P S : / / W W W . E P A . G O V / G H G E M I S S I O N S / T R A N S P O R T A T I O N – S E C T O R – E M I S S I O N S ( N . D . ) .

S T R A T E G I E S F O R H E A L T H Y A N D S U S T A I N A B L E T R A N S P O R T . W O R L D H E A L T H O R G A N I Z A T I O N . H T T P S : / / W W W . W H O . I N T / T E A M S / E N V I R O N M E N T – C L I M A T E – C H A N G E – A N D – H E A L T H / H E A L T H Y – U R B A N – E N V I R O N M E N T S / T R A N S P O R T / S T R A T E G I E S B A R A N , C . , B E L G A C E M , S . , P A I L L E T , M . , A B R E U , R . M . , A R A U J O , F . X . , M E R O N I , R . & C O R B E L L I N I , C .

( 2 0 2 4 ) . A C T I V E C O M M U T I N G A S A F A C T O R O F C A R D I O V A S C U L A R D I S E A S E P R E V E N T I O N : A S Y S T E M A T I C R E V I E W W I T H M E T A – A N A L Y S I S . J . F U N C T . M O R P H O L . K I N E S I O L .

2 0 2 4 . H T T P S : / / D O I . O R G / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / J F M K 9 0 3 0 1 2 5 W E S T E N H Ö F E R , J . , N O U R I , E . , R E S C H K E , M . L . , S E E B A C H , F . & B U C H C I K , J .

( 2 0 2 3 ) . W A L K A B I L I T Y A N D U R B A N B U I L T E N V I R O N M E N T S — A S Y S T E M A T I C R E V I E W O F H E A L T H I M P A C T A S S E S S M E N T S ( H I A ) . B M C P U B L I C H E A L T H 2 3 . H T T P S : / / D O I . O R G / 1 0 . 1 1 8 6 / S 1 2 8 8 9 – 0 2 3 – 1 5 3 9 4 – 4 G A O , C . , L A I , X . , L I , S . , C U I , Z . & L O N G , Z .

( 2 0 2 3 ) . B I B L I O M E T R I C I N S I G H T S I N T O T H E I M P L I C A T I O N S O F U R B A N B U I L T E N V I R O N M E N T O N T R A V E L B E H A V I O R . I S P R S I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L O F G E O – I N F O R M A T I O N 1 2 ( 1 1 ) . H T T P S : / / D O I . O R G / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / I J G I 1 2 1 1 0 4 5 3 M Ö L E N B E R G , F . J . , P A N T E R , J . , B U R D O R F , A . & L E N T H E , F . J .

( 2 0 1 9 ) . A S Y S T E M A T I C R E V I E W O F T H E E F F E C T O F I N F R A S T R U C T U R A L I N T E R V E N T I O N S T O P R O M O T E C Y C L I N G : S T R E N G T H E N I N G C A U S A L I N F E R E N C E F R O M O B S E R V A T I O N A L D A T A . I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L O F B E H A V I O R A L N U T R I T I O N A N D P H Y S I C A L A C T I V I T Y 1 6 . H T T P S : / / D O I . O R G / 1 0 . 1 1 8 6 / S 1 2 9 6 6 – 0 1 9 – 0 8 5 0 – 1 N I E U W E N H U I J S E N , M . J .

( 2 0 1 6 ) . U R B A N A N D T R A N S P O R T P L A N N I N G , E N V I R O N M E N T A L E X P O S U R E S A N D H E A L T H – N E W C O N C E P T S , M E T H O D S A N D T O O L S T O I M P R O V E H E A L T H I N C I T I E S . E N V I R O N M E N T A L H E A L T H 1 5 . H T T P S : / / D O I . O R G / 1 0 . 1 1 8 6 / S 1 2 9 4 0 – 0 1 6 – 0 1 0 8 – 1 ( N . D . ) . B U I L T E N V I R O N M E N T I N F L U E N C E S O N V E H I C L E O W N E R S H I P A N D T R A V E L B E H A V I O R . N A T U R E I N D E X . H T T P S : / / W W W . N A T U R E . C O M / N A T U R E – I N D E X / T O P I C S / L 4 / B U I L T – E N V I R O N M E N T – I N F L U E N C E S – O N – V E H I C L E – O W N E R S H I P – A N D – T R A V E L – B E H A V I O R N A W A R O , Ł .

( 2 0 2 1 ) . E – S C O O T E R S : C O M P E T I T I O N W I T H S H A R E D B I C Y C L E S A N D R E L A T I O N S H I P T O P U B L I C T R A N S P O R T . I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L O F U R B A N S U S T A I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T 1 3 ( 3 ) , P P . 6 1 4 – 6 3 0 . H T T P S : / / D O I . O R G / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 1 9 4 6 3 1 3 8 . 2 0 2 1 . 1 9 8 1 3 3 6 C U I , C . & Z H A N G , Y .

( 2 0 2 4 ) . I N T E G R A T I O N O F S H A R E D M I C R O M O B I L I T Y I N T O P U B L I C T R A N S I T : A S Y S T E M A T I C L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W W I T H G R E Y L I T E R A T U R E . S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y 1 6 ( 9 ) . H T T P S : / / D O I . O R G / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / S U 1 6 0 9 3 5 5 7 S U G I Y A M A , T . , H A D G R A F T , N . , A B E , T . , P E T R U N O F F , N . , O W E N , N . & C H A N D R A B O S E , M .

( 2 0 2 5 ) . N E I G H B O U R H O O D S O C I O E C O N O M I C D I S P A R I T I E S I N A C T I V E T R A V E L A N D C A R D E P E N D E N C Y I N A U S T R A L I A N U R B A N S E T T I N G S . C I T I E S 1 6 0 . H T T P S : / / D O I . O R G / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / J . C I T I E S . 2 0 2 5 . 1 0 5 8 4 5 K A R P M A N , M . , M O R R I S S , S . & G O N Z A L E Z , D .

( 2 0 2 4 ) . B A R R I E R S T O A C C E S S I N G M E D I C A L E Q U I P M E N T A N D O T H E R H E A L T H S E R V I C E S A N D S U P P O R T S W I T H I N H O U S E H O L D S O F A D U L T S W I T H D I S A B I L I T I E S . U R B A N I N S T I T U T E . H T T P S : / / W W W . U R B A N . O R G / R E S E A R C H / P U B L I C A T I O N / B A R R I E R S – A C C E S S I N G – M E D I C A L – E Q U I P M E N T – A N D – O T H E R – H E A L T H – S E R V I C E S – A N D – S U P P O R T S S C H W E D E S , O . & H O O R , M .

( 2 0 1 9 ) . I N T E G R A T E D T R A N S P O R T P L A N N I N G : F R O M S U P P L Y – T O D E M A N D – O R I E N T E D P L A N N I N G . C O N S I D E R I N G T H E B E N E F I T S . S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y 1 1 ( 2 1 ) . H T T P S : / / D O I . O R G / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / S U 1 1 2 1 5 9 0 0 F O R U M , I . T . ( N . D . ) . R E V E R S I N G C A R D E P E N D E N C Y . H T T P S : / / W W W . O E C D . O R G / E N / P U B L I C A T I O N S / R E V E R S I N G – C A R