A universal framework for inclusive 15-minute cities

Bruno Campanelli; Hygor Piaget Monteiro Melo; Matteo Bruno; Vittorio Loreto

arxiv: 2408.03794 · v1 · submitted 2024-08-07 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

A universal framework for inclusive 15-minute cities

Matteo Bruno , Hygor Piaget Monteiro Melo , Bruno Campanelli , Vittorio Loreto This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 22:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

keywords citiesminutecityservicesaccessibilityresourcesworldwidedensities

0 comments

The pith

The 15-minute city model must be generalized for different population densities and expanded beyond time to include socio-economic value.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper quantifies travel times to essential services in cities around the world and documents large differences in accessibility both inside individual cities and between cities. These differences track local population density closely. Simulations then test how redistributing the same services or adding new ones could reduce inequality, showing that the number of extra services required varies sharply from city to city. The authors conclude that a single proximity rule cannot serve every density regime and that planning must incorporate cultural and economic priorities to become value-based rather than purely time-based.

Core claim

Worldwide measurement of accessibility times reveals strong heterogeneity within and across cities driven by local population densities. Redistribution simulations demonstrate that inequity can be reduced while holding total resources fixed or allowing unlimited additions, yet the minimum number of new services needed to reach 15-minute coverage differs markedly among cities. The proximity-based paradigm therefore requires generalization to accommodate density variation, and socio-economic and cultural factors must be added to move from time-based to value-based city design.

What carries the argument

Global accessibility-time measurement to services combined with fixed-resource and unlimited-resource redistribution simulations that quantify the minimum additions needed per city.

If this is right

Accessibility heterogeneity inside cities is a measurable source of inequality that redistribution can shrink.
The minimum number of additional services required to meet the 15-minute target varies strongly across cities.
A uniform proximity rule must be replaced by one that adapts to the full observed range of population densities.
Planning must incorporate socio-economic and cultural factors to shift from time-based to value-based cities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The platform could serve as a baseline for testing whether adding density-specific service thresholds reduces measured inequality more efficiently than uniform additions.
Extending the redistribution logic to include travel-mode differences or seasonal network changes would test robustness of the density patterns.
Value-based metrics could be operationalized by pairing the accessibility scores with resident surveys on service importance rather than travel time alone.
Comparative analysis across the platform might identify density thresholds at which redistribution yields diminishing returns on equity.
keywords:[

Load-bearing premise

The global quantification of accessibility times assumes complete and unbiased datasets on service locations and transportation networks exist for virtually all cities.

What would settle it

A city-by-city audit using ground-verified service locations and transport networks that finds no correlation between measured accessibility heterogeneity and local population density would falsify the reported density dependence.

read the original abstract

Proximity-based cities have attracted much attention in recent years. The 15-minute city, in particular, heralded a new vision for cities where essential services must be easily accessible. Despite its undoubted merit in stimulating discussion on new organisations of cities, the 15-minute city cannot be applicable everywhere, and its very definition raises a few concerns. Here, we tackle the feasibility and practicability of the '15-minute city' model in many cities worldwide. We provide a worldwide quantification of how close cities are to the ideal of the 15-minute city. To this end, we measure the accessibility times to resources and services, and we reveal strong heterogeneity of accessibility within and across cities, with a significant role played by local population densities. We provide an online platform (\href{whatif.sonycsl.it/15mincity}{whatif.sonycsl.it/15mincity}) to access and visualise accessibility scores for virtually all cities worldwide. The heterogeneity of accessibility within cities is one of the sources of inequality. We thus simulate how much a better redistribution of resources and services could heal inequity by keeping the same resources and services or by allowing for virtually infinite resources. We highlight pronounced discrepancies among cities in the minimum number of additional services needed to comply with the 15-minute city concept. We conclude that the proximity-based paradigm must be generalised to work on a wide range of local population densities. Finally, socio-economic and cultural factors should be included to shift from time-based to value-based cities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Worldwide accessibility scores and platform are new, but missing data validation weakens the density-heterogeneity claims.

read the letter

Colleague, the one or two things to know: this paper delivers a worldwide set of accessibility scores and an interactive platform, along with simulations of service redistribution. That is the concrete new output. However, the claim that accessibility heterogeneity is strongly modulated by density and requires generalizing the 15-minute model rests on measurements whose accuracy is not demonstrated in the available description. The paper does a solid job extending the 15-minute city idea to a global scale. Earlier work was mostly case studies in specific cities. Here they quantify for virtually all cities, reveal within-city differences, and run what-if scenarios on adding services while keeping total resources fixed or allowing more. The platform is a real deliverable that others can use. They credit the role of density in driving the variation, which is a reasonable observation from the maps they describe. The conclusion that socio-economic factors should come into play next is fair, though not pursued in detail. Where it is soft is the data foundation. No details appear on the exact sources for service locations, transportation networks, or population data. There are no mentions of validation, ground-truth comparisons, or tests for how missing data in certain neighborhoods might affect the results. If coverage is poorer in dense low-income areas, as often happens with volunteered geographic information, then the reported stronger heterogeneity in those places could be an artifact. The stress-test note points to exactly this risk, and nothing in the abstract counters it. This is not a minor issue because the heterogeneity is the main evidence for their generalization argument. The math and simulations seem straightforward once the times are measured, but the measurement step is the load-bearing part. This is aimed at the urban planning and policy community looking for scalable metrics. It has enough new elements and a usable tool that it should go to peer review rather than desk reject. Referees can ask for the missing validation sections. Recommendation: yes, send for review.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims to deliver a global quantification of accessibility times to essential services across cities worldwide, revealing strong within- and across-city heterogeneity modulated by local population density. It introduces an online visualization platform, simulates the effects of resource redistribution (with fixed or unlimited resources) on inequity, quantifies city-specific needs for additional services to meet the 15-minute criterion, and concludes that the proximity paradigm must be generalized beyond uniform density assumptions while incorporating socio-economic and cultural factors to shift toward value-based urban models.

Significance. If the accessibility measurements prove robust, the work would provide a useful quantitative baseline for comparing 15-minute city feasibility across diverse urban contexts and could inform targeted service placement policies. The online platform constitutes a clear strength for reproducibility and community use. The emphasis on density-dependent heterogeneity and the simulation of redistribution scenarios offers a concrete way to move beyond one-size-fits-all prescriptions.

major comments (2)

[Methods / quantification of accessibility times] The description of the worldwide accessibility quantification (abstract and associated methods) supplies no information on data sources for service locations or transportation networks, no validation against ground-truth data, and no sensitivity tests to coverage gaps or measurement error. Because the central claims of density-modulated heterogeneity and city-specific additional-service counts rest directly on these time measurements, the absence of such checks is load-bearing; incomplete OpenStreetMap-style layers in high-density or informal areas could artifactually generate the reported patterns.
[Simulation of redistribution] The simulation of resource redistribution and the reported minimum numbers of additional services needed (results section) does not specify the optimization procedure, how service categories are chosen, or how the 15-minute threshold is applied across density regimes. These choices are listed as free parameters in the supporting analysis; without explicit treatment, the discrepancies among cities cannot be assessed for robustness.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract contains a LaTeX-formatted hyperlink that should be rendered as plain text or a footnote for readability in the published version.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. The comments correctly identify areas where the methods description can be strengthened to better support the central claims. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Methods / quantification of accessibility times] The description of the worldwide accessibility quantification (abstract and associated methods) supplies no information on data sources for service locations or transportation networks, no validation against ground-truth data, and no sensitivity tests to coverage gaps or measurement error. Because the central claims of density-modulated heterogeneity and city-specific additional-service counts rest directly on these time measurements, the absence of such checks is load-bearing; incomplete OpenStreetMap-style layers in high-density or informal areas could artifactually generate the reported patterns.

Authors: We agree that explicit documentation of data sources, validation, and sensitivity is essential. The accessibility calculations rely on OpenStreetMap (OSM) for both point-of-interest locations (using standard amenity, shop, and leisure tags for the service categories) and the underlying street network, with travel times computed via shortest-path routing on the OSM graph assuming a constant walking speed. These details appear in the supplementary materials but were insufficiently summarized in the main-text Methods. We will add a dedicated Methods subsection that (i) lists all OSM tags and data extraction procedure, (ii) specifies the routing library and speed assumption, and (iii) reports sensitivity tests: random removal of 10–30 % of service points, comparison against available city-level ground-truth datasets for a subset of European and North American cities, and stratification of results by OSM coverage completeness proxies. These additions directly mitigate concerns about potential artifacts in high-density or informal settlements and will be referenced from the abstract and results. revision: yes
Referee: [Simulation of redistribution] The simulation of resource redistribution and the reported minimum numbers of additional services needed (results section) does not specify the optimization procedure, how service categories are chosen, or how the 15-minute threshold is applied across density regimes. These choices are listed as free parameters in the supporting analysis; without explicit treatment, the discrepancies among cities cannot be assessed for robustness.

Authors: We accept that the simulation procedure must be described more explicitly in the main text. The redistribution uses a greedy iterative placement: at each step the algorithm selects the grid cell whose population experiences the largest reduction in average accessibility time when a new service of the currently most deficient category is added, repeating until a chosen fraction of residents meets the 15-minute criterion for all categories. Service categories are the six essential types enumerated in the paper (education, healthcare, groceries, etc.), each treated with equal priority. The 15-minute threshold is applied uniformly per category but we will add density-binned results (low/medium/high population density cells) to show how the required additions vary with local density. The supporting-information parameters will be consolidated into a new main-text subsection on the simulation framework, including pseudocode and explicit statements of the fixed-resource versus unlimited-resource scenarios. These clarifications will allow readers to evaluate the robustness of the reported city-to-city differences. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation relies on external data and forward simulation

full rationale

The paper's core results—global accessibility quantification, within-city heterogeneity modulated by density, and simulated redistribution needs—are obtained by direct measurement on external geographic datasets (service locations, transport networks) followed by forward simulation of service additions. No equations or claims reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or self-citation chains; the derivation chain remains independent of its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework applies standard accessibility calculations to external geographic data; no new entities are introduced and the main assumptions are domain-standard rather than ad-hoc.

free parameters (1)

service categories and 15-minute threshold
Choice of which services count as essential and the exact time cutoff are defined by convention rather than derived from the data.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Travel time to nearest service is a sufficient proxy for accessibility and equity
Invoked throughout the quantification and simulation steps described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5809 in / 1245 out tokens · 29050 ms · 2026-05-23T22:11:40.662445+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

15- minute city

Moreno, C., Allam, Z., Chabaud, D., Gall, C. & Pratlong, F. Introducing the “15- minute city”: Sustainability, resilience and place identity in future post-pandemic cities. Smart Cities 4, 93–111 (2021)

work page 2021
[2]

E., Chabaud, D

Allam, Z., Bibri, S. E., Chabaud, D. & Moreno, C. The theoretical, practical, and technological foundations of the 15-minute city model: proximity and its environmental, social and economic benefits for sustainabil- ity. Energies 15, 6042 (2022)

work page 2022
[3]

& Tesoriere, G

Basbas, S., Campisi, T., Papas, T., Trouva, M. & Tesoriere, G. The 15-minute city model: The case of sicily during and after covid-

work page
[4]

URL https://dx.doi.org/10.26552/com.c.2023.021

Communications - Scientific Letters of the University of Zilina 23 (2023). URL https://dx.doi.org/10.26552/com.c.2023.021. 10

work page doi:10.26552/com.c.2023.021 2023
[5]

Rhoads, D., Sol´ e-Ribalta, A., Gonz´ alez, M. C. & Borge-Holthoefer, J. A sustainable strat- egy for open streets in (post) pandemic cities. Communications Physics 4, 183 (2021)

work page 2021
[6]

Perry, C. A. The neighborhood unit. a scheme of arrangement for the family-life community. Monograph 1 in Vol. 7, Regional Plan of N.Y. Regional Survey of N.Y. and Its Environs (1929)

work page 1929
[7]

& Angelidou, M

Pozoukidou, G. & Angelidou, M. Urban planning in the 15-minute city: Revisited under sustainable and smart city develop- ments until 2030. Smart Cities 5, 69 (2022). URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ smartcities5040069

work page 2030
[8]

V., Rybski, D

Ribeiro, H. V., Rybski, D. & Kropp, J. P. Effects of changing population or density on urban carbon dioxide emissions. Nature communications 10, 3204 (2019)

work page 2019
[9]

& van Den Bosch, C

Haaland, C. & van Den Bosch, C. K. Chal- lenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban forestry & urban greening 14, 760–771 (2015)

work page 2015
[10]

R., Sharifi, A

Khavarian-Garmsir, A. R., Sharifi, A. & Sadeghi, A. The 15-minute city: Urban plan- ning and design efforts toward creating sus- tainable neighborhoods. Cities 132, 104101 (2023)

work page 2023
[11]

The compact city: just or just compact? A preliminary analysis

Burton, E. The compact city: just or just compact? A preliminary analysis. Urban studies 37, 1969–2006 (2000)

work page 1969
[12]

Lima, F. T. & Costa, F. The quest for proximity: a systematic review of computa- tional approaches towards 15-minute cities. Architecture 3, 393–409 (2023)

work page 2023
[13]

& Chatziyiannaki, Z

Pozoukidou, G. & Chatziyiannaki, Z. 15- minute city: decomposing the new urban planning eutopia. Sustainability 13, 928 (2021)

work page 2021
[14]

Levinson, D. & Wu, H. Towards a general theory of access. Journal of Transport and Land Use 13, 129–158 (2020)

work page 2020
[15]

& King, D

Levinson, D. & King, D. Transport access manual: A guide for measuring connection between people and places (Committee of the Transport Access Manual, University of Syd- ney, 2020)

work page 2020
[16]

& Levinson, D

Cui, M. & Levinson, D. Primal and dual access. Geographical Analysis 52, 452–474 (2020)

work page 2020
[17]

Weiss, D., Nelson, A., Gibson, H. et al. A global map of travel time to cities to assess inequalities in accessibility in 2015. Nature 553, 333–336 (2018). URL https://www. nature.com/articles/nature25181

work page 2015
[18]

& Loreto, V

Biazzo, I., Monechi, B. & Loreto, V. General scores for accessibility and inequality mea- sures in urban areas. R. Soc. open sci. 6, 190979 (2019). URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1098/rsos.190979

work page 2019
[19]

Liu, S., Yang, G., Wu, Z. et al. Study- ing the distribution patterns, dynamics and influencing factors of city functional compo- nents by gradient analysis. Scientific Reports 11 (2021). URL https://www.nature.com/ articles/s41598-021-97208-4

work page 2021
[20]

Kaufmann, T., Radaelli, L., Bettencourt, L. M. A. & Shmueli, E. Scaling of urban ameni- ties: generative statistics and implications for urban planning. EPJ Data Science 11, 50 (2022). URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/ s13688-022-00362-6

work page doi:10.1140/epjds/ 2022
[21]

Bittencourt, T. A. & Giannotti, M. Eval- uating the accessibility and availability of public services to reduce inequalities in every- day mobility. Transportation research part A: policy and practice 177, 103833 (2023)

work page 2023
[22]

Visualizing and assessing the 15-minute city facility configuration of city region a study on the beijing-tianjin-hebei urban agglomeration

Yang, J. Visualizing and assessing the 15-minute city facility configuration of city region a study on the beijing-tianjin-hebei urban agglomeration. AEHSSR 4, 63 (2023). URL https://dx.doi.org/10.56028/aehssr.4.1. 63.2023

work page doi:10.56028/aehssr.4.1 2023
[23]

& Lopes, A

Vale, D. & Lopes, A. S. Accessibility inequal- ity across europe: a comparison of 15-minute pedestrian accessibility in cities with 100,000 11 or more inhabitants. npj Urban Sustainability 3, 55 (2023)

work page 2023
[24]

Gastner, M. T. & Newman, M. E. Opti- mal design of spatial distribution networks. Physical Review E 74, 016117 (2006)

work page 2006
[25]

E., Abbar, S

Xu, Y., Olmos, L. E., Abbar, S. & Gonz´ alez, M. C. Deconstructing laws of accessibility and facility distribution in cities. Science Advances 6, eabb4112 (2020). URL https://www.science.org/doi/ abs/10.1126/sciadv.abb4112

work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abb4112 2020
[26]

T., Brown, N

Lima, F. T., Brown, N. C. & Duarte, J. P. A grammar-based optimization approach for designing urban fabrics and locating ameni- ties for 15-minute cities. Buildings 12, 1157 (2022)

work page 2022
[27]

& Mostafavi, A

Fan, C., Jiang, X., Lee, R. & Mostafavi, A. Equality of access and resilience in urban population-facility networks. npj Urban Sus- tainability 2, 9 (2022)

work page 2022
[28]

& Veneri, P

Dijkstra, L., Poelman, H. & Veneri, P. The EU-OECD definition of a functional urban area (OECD, 2019)

work page 2019
[29]

Florczyk, A. J. et al. Ghs urban cen- tre database 2015, multitemporal and mul- tidimensional attributes, r2019a. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) (2019)

work page 2015
[30]

Planet dump retrieved from https://planet.osm.org

OpenStreetMap contributors. Planet dump retrieved from https://planet.osm.org . https: //www.openstreetmap.org (2023)

work page 2023
[31]

www.worldpop.org (2020)

work page 2020
[32]

& Tatem, A

Bondarenko, M., Kerr, D., Sorichetta, A. & Tatem, A. Census/projection-disaggregated gridded population datasets. Adjusted to Match the corresponding UNPD (2020)

work page 2020
[33]

& Vetter, C

Luxen, D. & Vetter, C. Real-time routing with openstreetmap data (2011). URL http: //doi.acm.org/10.1145/2093973.2094062

work page doi:10.1145/2093973.2094062 2011
[34]

Logan, T. et al. The x-minute city: Measuring the 10, 15, 20-minute city and an evaluation of its use for sustainable urban design. Cities 131, 103924 (2022)

work page 2022
[35]

& Borge- Holthoefer, J

Rhoads, D., Sol´ e-Ribalta, A. & Borge- Holthoefer, J. The inclusive 15-minute city: Walkability analysis with sidewalk networks. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 100, 101936 (2023)

work page 2023
[36]

& Zipf, A

Herfort, B., Lautenbach, S., Porto de Albu- querque, J., Anderson, J. & Zipf, A. A spatio- temporal analysis investigating completeness and inequalities of global urban building data in openstreetmap. Nature Communications 14, 3985 (2023). 12 Appendix Appendix A The proximity time scores and rankings We present here a closer look at the accessibility scor...

work page 2023

[1] [1]

15- minute city

Moreno, C., Allam, Z., Chabaud, D., Gall, C. & Pratlong, F. Introducing the “15- minute city”: Sustainability, resilience and place identity in future post-pandemic cities. Smart Cities 4, 93–111 (2021)

work page 2021

[2] [2]

E., Chabaud, D

Allam, Z., Bibri, S. E., Chabaud, D. & Moreno, C. The theoretical, practical, and technological foundations of the 15-minute city model: proximity and its environmental, social and economic benefits for sustainabil- ity. Energies 15, 6042 (2022)

work page 2022

[3] [3]

& Tesoriere, G

Basbas, S., Campisi, T., Papas, T., Trouva, M. & Tesoriere, G. The 15-minute city model: The case of sicily during and after covid-

work page

[4] [4]

URL https://dx.doi.org/10.26552/com.c.2023.021

Communications - Scientific Letters of the University of Zilina 23 (2023). URL https://dx.doi.org/10.26552/com.c.2023.021. 10

work page doi:10.26552/com.c.2023.021 2023

[5] [5]

Rhoads, D., Sol´ e-Ribalta, A., Gonz´ alez, M. C. & Borge-Holthoefer, J. A sustainable strat- egy for open streets in (post) pandemic cities. Communications Physics 4, 183 (2021)

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Perry, C. A. The neighborhood unit. a scheme of arrangement for the family-life community. Monograph 1 in Vol. 7, Regional Plan of N.Y. Regional Survey of N.Y. and Its Environs (1929)

work page 1929

[7] [7]

& Angelidou, M

Pozoukidou, G. & Angelidou, M. Urban planning in the 15-minute city: Revisited under sustainable and smart city develop- ments until 2030. Smart Cities 5, 69 (2022). URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ smartcities5040069

work page 2030

[8] [8]

V., Rybski, D

Ribeiro, H. V., Rybski, D. & Kropp, J. P. Effects of changing population or density on urban carbon dioxide emissions. Nature communications 10, 3204 (2019)

work page 2019

[9] [9]

& van Den Bosch, C

Haaland, C. & van Den Bosch, C. K. Chal- lenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban forestry & urban greening 14, 760–771 (2015)

work page 2015

[10] [10]

R., Sharifi, A

Khavarian-Garmsir, A. R., Sharifi, A. & Sadeghi, A. The 15-minute city: Urban plan- ning and design efforts toward creating sus- tainable neighborhoods. Cities 132, 104101 (2023)

work page 2023

[11] [11]

The compact city: just or just compact? A preliminary analysis

Burton, E. The compact city: just or just compact? A preliminary analysis. Urban studies 37, 1969–2006 (2000)

work page 1969

[12] [12]

Lima, F. T. & Costa, F. The quest for proximity: a systematic review of computa- tional approaches towards 15-minute cities. Architecture 3, 393–409 (2023)

work page 2023

[13] [13]

& Chatziyiannaki, Z

Pozoukidou, G. & Chatziyiannaki, Z. 15- minute city: decomposing the new urban planning eutopia. Sustainability 13, 928 (2021)

work page 2021

[14] [14]

Levinson, D. & Wu, H. Towards a general theory of access. Journal of Transport and Land Use 13, 129–158 (2020)

work page 2020

[15] [15]

& King, D

Levinson, D. & King, D. Transport access manual: A guide for measuring connection between people and places (Committee of the Transport Access Manual, University of Syd- ney, 2020)

work page 2020

[16] [16]

& Levinson, D

Cui, M. & Levinson, D. Primal and dual access. Geographical Analysis 52, 452–474 (2020)

work page 2020

[17] [17]

Weiss, D., Nelson, A., Gibson, H. et al. A global map of travel time to cities to assess inequalities in accessibility in 2015. Nature 553, 333–336 (2018). URL https://www. nature.com/articles/nature25181

work page 2015

[18] [18]

& Loreto, V

Biazzo, I., Monechi, B. & Loreto, V. General scores for accessibility and inequality mea- sures in urban areas. R. Soc. open sci. 6, 190979 (2019). URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1098/rsos.190979

work page 2019

[19] [19]

Liu, S., Yang, G., Wu, Z. et al. Study- ing the distribution patterns, dynamics and influencing factors of city functional compo- nents by gradient analysis. Scientific Reports 11 (2021). URL https://www.nature.com/ articles/s41598-021-97208-4

work page 2021

[20] [20]

Kaufmann, T., Radaelli, L., Bettencourt, L. M. A. & Shmueli, E. Scaling of urban ameni- ties: generative statistics and implications for urban planning. EPJ Data Science 11, 50 (2022). URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/ s13688-022-00362-6

work page doi:10.1140/epjds/ 2022

[21] [21]

Bittencourt, T. A. & Giannotti, M. Eval- uating the accessibility and availability of public services to reduce inequalities in every- day mobility. Transportation research part A: policy and practice 177, 103833 (2023)

work page 2023

[22] [22]

Visualizing and assessing the 15-minute city facility configuration of city region a study on the beijing-tianjin-hebei urban agglomeration

Yang, J. Visualizing and assessing the 15-minute city facility configuration of city region a study on the beijing-tianjin-hebei urban agglomeration. AEHSSR 4, 63 (2023). URL https://dx.doi.org/10.56028/aehssr.4.1. 63.2023

work page doi:10.56028/aehssr.4.1 2023

[23] [23]

& Lopes, A

Vale, D. & Lopes, A. S. Accessibility inequal- ity across europe: a comparison of 15-minute pedestrian accessibility in cities with 100,000 11 or more inhabitants. npj Urban Sustainability 3, 55 (2023)

work page 2023

[24] [24]

Gastner, M. T. & Newman, M. E. Opti- mal design of spatial distribution networks. Physical Review E 74, 016117 (2006)

work page 2006

[25] [25]

E., Abbar, S

Xu, Y., Olmos, L. E., Abbar, S. & Gonz´ alez, M. C. Deconstructing laws of accessibility and facility distribution in cities. Science Advances 6, eabb4112 (2020). URL https://www.science.org/doi/ abs/10.1126/sciadv.abb4112

work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abb4112 2020

[26] [26]

T., Brown, N

Lima, F. T., Brown, N. C. & Duarte, J. P. A grammar-based optimization approach for designing urban fabrics and locating ameni- ties for 15-minute cities. Buildings 12, 1157 (2022)

work page 2022

[27] [27]

& Mostafavi, A

Fan, C., Jiang, X., Lee, R. & Mostafavi, A. Equality of access and resilience in urban population-facility networks. npj Urban Sus- tainability 2, 9 (2022)

work page 2022

[28] [28]

& Veneri, P

Dijkstra, L., Poelman, H. & Veneri, P. The EU-OECD definition of a functional urban area (OECD, 2019)

work page 2019

[29] [29]

Florczyk, A. J. et al. Ghs urban cen- tre database 2015, multitemporal and mul- tidimensional attributes, r2019a. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) (2019)

work page 2015

[30] [30]

Planet dump retrieved from https://planet.osm.org

OpenStreetMap contributors. Planet dump retrieved from https://planet.osm.org . https: //www.openstreetmap.org (2023)

work page 2023

[31] [31]

www.worldpop.org (2020)

work page 2020

[32] [32]

& Tatem, A

Bondarenko, M., Kerr, D., Sorichetta, A. & Tatem, A. Census/projection-disaggregated gridded population datasets. Adjusted to Match the corresponding UNPD (2020)

work page 2020

[33] [33]

& Vetter, C

Luxen, D. & Vetter, C. Real-time routing with openstreetmap data (2011). URL http: //doi.acm.org/10.1145/2093973.2094062

work page doi:10.1145/2093973.2094062 2011

[34] [34]

Logan, T. et al. The x-minute city: Measuring the 10, 15, 20-minute city and an evaluation of its use for sustainable urban design. Cities 131, 103924 (2022)

work page 2022

[35] [35]

& Borge- Holthoefer, J

Rhoads, D., Sol´ e-Ribalta, A. & Borge- Holthoefer, J. The inclusive 15-minute city: Walkability analysis with sidewalk networks. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 100, 101936 (2023)

work page 2023

[36] [36]

& Zipf, A

Herfort, B., Lautenbach, S., Porto de Albu- querque, J., Anderson, J. & Zipf, A. A spatio- temporal analysis investigating completeness and inequalities of global urban building data in openstreetmap. Nature Communications 14, 3985 (2023). 12 Appendix Appendix A The proximity time scores and rankings We present here a closer look at the accessibility scor...

work page 2023