IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i10p4684-d1659722.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multidimensional Evaluation Model for Sustainable and Smart Urban Mobility in Global South Cities: A Citizen-Centred Comprehensive Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Diana Angarita-Lozano

    (Faculty of Engineering, Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, Tunja 150003, Colombia)

  • Darío Hidalgo-Guerrero

    (Faculty of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá 110311, Colombia)

  • Sonia Díaz-Márquez

    (Faculty of Engineering, Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, Tunja 150003, Colombia)

  • María Morales-Puentes

    (Faculty of Science, Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, Tunja 150003, Colombia)

  • Miguel Angel Mendoza-Moreno

    (Faculty of Engineering, Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, Tunja 150003, Colombia)

Abstract

Dealing with the challenge of urban sustainability, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, requires a holistic approach to urban mobility planning. While numerous mobility assessment frameworks exist for developed regions, there remains a significant gap in methodologies adapted to Global South contexts because they do not incorporate governance dimensions and citizen perspectives. This research addresses this gap by developing and validating a comprehensive assessment framework that extends beyond the traditional sustainability triad to include governance aspects. Our research question explores how a hybrid evaluation approach combining objective measurements with subjective citizen perceptions can enhance mobility assessments in resource-constrained environments. The proposed model comprises four dimensions (environmental, social, economic, and governance), eight sub-dimensions, and thirty-six indicators, with weights assigned through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) by diverse mobility experts. The methodology was validated in two intermediate Colombian cities, demonstrating its applicability in contexts with limited availability of data. The results highlight gaps in mobility policies due to discrepancies between official measurements and citizen perceptions. This assessment framework offers a practical instrument for urban mobility decision-makers in Global South cities, enabling evidence-based prioritization while ensuring that citizen needs remain central to sustainable transportation planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Diana Angarita-Lozano & Darío Hidalgo-Guerrero & Sonia Díaz-Márquez & María Morales-Puentes & Miguel Angel Mendoza-Moreno, 2025. "Multidimensional Evaluation Model for Sustainable and Smart Urban Mobility in Global South Cities: A Citizen-Centred Comprehensive Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-26, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4684-:d:1659722
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/10/4684/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/10/4684/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mariano Gallo & Mario Marinelli, 2020. "Sustainable Mobility: A Review of Possible Actions and Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-39, September.
    2. Julia Schmale & Erika Von Schneidemesser & Axel Dörrie, 2015. "An Integrated Assessment Method for Sustainable Transport System Planning in a Middle Sized German City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-26, January.
    3. Chakhtoura, Céline & Pojani, Dorina, 2016. "Indicator-based evaluation of sustainable transport plans: A framework for Paris and other large cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 15-28.
    4. Jonas Damidavičius & Marija Burinskienė & Jurgita Antuchevičienė, 2020. "Assessing Sustainable Mobility Measures Applying Multicriteria Decision Making Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Vito Albino & Umberto Berardi & Rosa Maria Dangelico, 2015. "Smart Cities: Definitions, Dimensions, Performance, and Initiatives," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 3-21, January.
    6. Carlos Moreno, 2020. "Vie urbaine et proximité à l’heure du COVID-19," Post-Print hal-03259768, HAL.
    7. Tan Yigitcanlar & Marcus Foth & Md. Kamruzzaman, 2019. "Towards Post-Anthropocentric Cities: Reconceptualizing Smart Cities to Evade Urban Ecocide," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 147-152, April.
    8. Lyons, Glenn, 2018. "Getting smart about urban mobility – Aligning the paradigms of smart and sustainable," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 4-14.
    9. Ilenia Spadaro & Francesca Pirlone, 2021. "Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan and Health Security," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, April.
    10. Simona Zapolskytė & Martin Trépanier & Marija Burinskienė & Oksana Survilė, 2022. "Smart Urban Mobility System Evaluation Model Adaptation to Vilnius, Montreal and Weimar Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, January.
    11. Jeon, Christy Mihyeon & Amekudzi, Adjo A. & Guensler, Randall L., 2013. "Sustainability assessment at the transportation planning level: Performance measures and indexes," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 10-21.
    12. Francesco Filippi, 2022. "A Paradigm Shift for a Transition to Sustainable Urban Transport," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-27, March.
    13. Banister, David, 2008. "The sustainable mobility paradigm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 73-80, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Douglas Mitieka & Rose Luke & Hossana Twinomurinzi & Joash Mageto, 2023. "Smart Mobility in Urban Areas: A Bibliometric Review and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-23, April.
    2. Kalina Grzesiuk & Dorota Jegorow & Monika Wawer & Anna Głowacz, 2023. "Energy-Efficient City Transportation Solutions in the Context of Energy-Conserving and Mobility Behaviours of Generation Z," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-28, August.
    3. Remme, Devyn & Sareen, Siddharth & Haarstad, Håvard, 2022. "Who benefits from sustainable mobility transitions? Social inclusion, populist resistance and elite capture in Bergen, Norway," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    4. Gülay Demir & Milanko Damjanović & Boško Matović & Radoje Vujadinović, 2022. "Toward Sustainable Urban Mobility by Using Fuzzy-FUCOM and Fuzzy-CoCoSo Methods: The Case of the SUMP Podgorica," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-27, April.
    5. Koutra, Sesil & Becue, Vincent & Ioakimidis, Christos S., 2019. "Searching for the ‘smart’ definition through its spatial approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 924-936.
    6. Monika Wawer & Kalina Grzesiuk & Dorota Jegorow, 2022. "Smart Mobility in a Smart City in the Context of Generation Z Sustainability, Use of ICT, and Participation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-30, June.
    7. Francesco Pinna & Francesca Masala & Chiara Garau, 2017. "Urban Policies and Mobility Trends in Italian Smart Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-21, March.
    8. Kfir Noy & Moshe Givoni, 2018. "Is ‘Smart Mobility’ Sustainable? Examining the Views and Beliefs of Transport’s Technological Entrepreneurs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Blanka Tundys & Tomasz Wiśniewski, 2023. "Smart Mobility for Smart Cities—Electromobility Solution Analysis and Development Directions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-20, February.
    10. Tara Vanli, 2024. "Can systemic governance of smart cities catalyse urban sustainability?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(9), pages 23327-23384, September.
    11. Ioannis Kanakis & Stathis Arapostathis & Stelios Rozakis, 2025. "Technology, Behavior, and Governance: Far Away, Yet So Close! A Comprehensive Review of the Sustainable Mobility and Transportation Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-44, May.
    12. Mariusz J. Ligarski & Tomasz Owczarek, 2023. "How Cities Study Quality of Life and Use This Information: Results of an Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, May.
    13. Regmi, Madan B., 2024. "Governance of urban mobility policies and plans in Asian cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 108-121.
    14. Clement, Dr. Jessica & Crutzen, Prof. Nathalie, 2021. "How Local Policy Priorities Set the Smart City Agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    15. Kębłowski, Wojciech & Dobruszkes, Frédéric & Boussauw, Kobe, 2022. "Moving past sustainable transport studies: Towards a critical perspective on urban transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 74-83.
    16. Lyons, Glenn, 2018. "Getting smart about urban mobility – Aligning the paradigms of smart and sustainable," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 4-14.
    17. Enver Cenan İnce, 2025. "Mapping the Path to Sustainable Urban Mobility: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Trends and Innovations in Transportation Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-32, February.
    18. Jorge Urrutia‐Mosquera & Yasna Cortés & Luz Flórez‐Calderón & Marcelo Lufín, 2025. "Sustainable urban development and mobility. The role of spatial heterogeneity in sustainable trip patterns," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(2), pages 2171-2188, April.
    19. Ioanna Moscholidou & Greg Marsden & Kate Pangbourne, 2023. "Steering Smart Mobility Services: Lessons from Seattle, Greater Manchester and Stockholm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-16, March.
    20. Radomíra Jordová & Hana Brůhová-Foltýnová, 2021. "Rise of a New Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning Paradigm in Local Governance: Does the SUMP Make a Difference?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4684-:d:1659722. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.