Benefits of a SUMP: providing accessibility for all
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61089/aot2025.fh4j7584Keywords:
Sump, The elderly, Sustainability, Transport planningAbstract
This paper focuses on the numerous advantages of implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP), emphasizing its critical role in shaping the future of urban environments. As cities continue to grow and evolve, planners face the challenge of maintaining economic vitality while ensuring that urban areas remain attractive and livable for current and future residents. SUMPs offer a comprehensive framework to address these challenges by promoting more sustainable, inclusive, and efficient transportation systems. One of the primary benefits of SUMPs is the creation of public spaces that are bike-friendly, walkable, and visually appealing - factors that have become essential in attracting new inhabitants, retaining existing populations, and enhancing overall public health and well-being. Despite these benefits, urban areas worldwide are witnessing a troubling decline in everyday physical activity, largely due to increased dependence on cars. This trend has serious health implications for urban populations, especially for the elderly. SUMPs aim to counteract this by reducing car dependency and encouraging active modes of transportation such as walking and cycling. This shift not only improves public health outcomes but also fosters better social inclusion by improving access to jobs, education, health services, cultural facilities, and other essential amenities, not only for the systematic demand but also for the erratic one of the elderly. This article is significant because it emphasizes the importance of SUMPs for vulnerable populations, especially the elderly, who frequently have mobility issues. However, the benefits extend beyond older adults to include children, young adults, low-income households, and those with medical conditions or other limitations that prevent car use. By integrating land-use planning with transportation strategies, SUMPs create an environment where mobility without a car becomes practical and convenient for nearly everyone, including car owners who might choose alternative modes for daily travel. Through the use of detailed case studies, this paper illustrates how SUMPs serve as strategic plans tailored to meet the diverse mobility needs of urban populations. It demonstrates how these plans improve upon traditional transportation planning by prioritizing integration, public participation, and continuous assessment, ultimately enhancing the quality of life for all city residents, with a special focus on elderly citizens.
References
1. Ajuntament de Barcelona. (2020). Ajuntament de Barcelona. https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/en/
2. Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005
3. Baltes, P. B., Baltes, M. M. (1990). Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences. Cambridge University Press.
4. Becker, S., Tebben, J., Coffinet, S., Wiltshire, K. H., Iversen, M. H., Harder, T., Hinrichs, K.-U., & Hehemann, J.-H. (2020). Laminarin is a major molecule in the marine carbon cycle. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(9), 4596–4603. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917001117
5. Bokolo, A. J. (2023). Inclusive and safe mobility needs of senior citizens: Implications for age-friendly cities and communities. Urban Science, 7(4), 103. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci7040103
6. Cacioppo, S., Cacioppo, J. T. (2014). Social relationships and health: The toxic effects of perceived social isolation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(2), 58-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12087
7. Chua, C. S. W., Lim, W. M., & Teh, P. L. (2025). Older adults’ adoption of technology-mediated mobility solutions: A review and agenda. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 49(1), 161–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924788.2024.
8. Church, T. S., Cheng, T. S., & Thomas, I. (2000). Walking parameters in the United States. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32(9), 1738-1745. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200009000-00016
9. Church, A., Frost, M., & Sullivan, K. (2000a). Transport and social exclusion in London. Transport Policy, 7(3), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00024-X
10. City of Helsinki. (2022). Accessibility Policies 2022–2025. City of Helsinki.
11. City of Paris. (2024, June 15). SUMPs in Paris: The “Réinventer Paris” initiative. City of Paris. https://www.paris.fr/reinventer-paris
12. City of Stockholm. (2022). Urban Mobility Strategy (Reg. no. T2021-02217). Transport Department. https://start.stockholm/globalassets/start/om-stockholms-stad/politik
13. CIVITAS Initiative. (2020). Sustainable mobility in action. https://civitas.eu/projects/sumps-up
14. Coughlin, J. F., D’Ambrosio, L., & Stothart, C. (2017). Aging America and transportation: Personal mobility and community mobility. Gerontologist, 57(suppl 1), S50-S59. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw131
15. Ding, H., Sze, N. N., Guo, Y., & Lu, Y. (2023). Effect of the ultra-low emission zone on the usage of public bike sharing in London. Transportation Letters, 15(7), 698–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2022.2102926
16. Docherty, A. R., Heesch, K. C., & Jackson, R. (2022). The impact of sensory impairment on mobility in older adults: A systematic review. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 30(4), 570-583. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2021-0344
17. Docherty, I., Stone, J., Curtis, C., Sørensen, C. H., Paulsson, A., Legacy, C., & Marsden, G. (2022a). The case for ‘public’ transport in the age of automated mobility. Cities, 128, 103784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103784
18. Eltis. (2021). European urban mobility initiatives and policies for age-friendly cities. Eltis Journal. https://www.eltis.org/article/european-urban-mobility-initiatives
19. European Environment Agency (EEA). (2020). https://www.eea.europa.eu/it/segnali/segnali-eea-2020-verso-un2019europa
20. European Union. (2013). Guidelines: Developing and implementing a sustainable urban mobility plan. https://www.trt.it/documenti/guidelines-developing-and-implementing-a-sump_final_web_jan2014b.pdf
21. European Commission. (2019). EU strategic plan for inclusive cities: Urban mobility and aging. European Commission Report. https://ec.europa.eu/urban/pdf/strategic_inclusive_cities_en.pdf
22. European Commission. (2019a). Oslo – Promoting active transport modes. European Commission. https://urban-mobility-observatory.transport.ec.europa.eu/resources/case-studies/oslo-promoting-active-transport-modes_en
23. European Commission. (2019b). Guidelines: Developing and implementing a sustainable urban mobility plan (2nd ed.). https://urban-mobility-observatory.transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/guidelines-developing-and-implementing-sustainable-urban-mobility-plan-2nd-edition-2019-10-02_en
24. European Commission. (2020). Sustainable mobility and urban planning: Policy frameworks and best practices. European Green Deal Communication. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/urban_mobility_en
25. European Parliamentary Research Service. (2019). Ageing in European cities: Challenges and policy responses. European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDDR_CULT_PL_2019_01/IDDR_CULT_PL_2019_01_EN.pdf
26. Ferris, C. F., Sherrington, C., Lord, S. R., Michaleff, Z. A., Fairhall, N., Tiedemann, A., & Dyer, S. M. (2013). Aging, mobility, and health: Connecting physical activity and independence. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 36(3), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1519/JPT.0b013e318284b918
27. Forsyth, A., & Krizek, K. J. (2010). Promoting walking and bicycling: Assessing the evidence to assist planners. Built Environment, 36(4), 429–446. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23289968
28. Garyfallia, F., & Garyfallia, K. (2024). Life between buildings: Using public space: The history of Jan Gehl's book and the legacy of its philosophy for designing cities at human scale. https://doi.org/10.15488/15158
29. Gössling, S. (2021). Urban transport transitions: A review of sustainable mobility in cities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 87, 102520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102520
30. Hickey, A., Reynolds, P., & McDonald, L. (2015). Understanding community to engage community: The use of qualitative research techniques in local government community engagement. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 37(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2015.1018371
31. Holienčinová, M., Kádeková, Z., Holota, T., & Nagyová, Ľ. (2020). Smart solution of traffic congestion through bike sharing system in a small city. Mobile Networks and Applications, 25(3), 868–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-020-01516-4
32. Kaufman, J. (2022). Creativity and mental illness. In Creativity and Innovation Theory, Research, and Practice (Chapter 7). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003233923-7
33. Lecompte, M. C., & Bocarejo, S. J. P. (2017). Transport systems and their impact on gender equity. Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 4245–4257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.230
34. Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy, 20, 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.013
35. Maas, B. (2022). Literature review of mobility as a service. Sustainability, 14(14), 8962. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148962
36. Monteiro, J., Sousa, N., Natividade-Jesus, E., & Coutinho-Rodrigues, J. (2023). The Potential Impact of Cycling on Urban Transport Energy and Modal Share: A GIS-Based Methodology. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 12(2), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi12020048
37. Mueller, N., Cirach, M., Ambros, A., Daher, C., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., & Basagaña, X. (2024). Health impact assessment of port-sourced air pollution in Barcelona. PLoS ONE, 19(8), e0305236. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305236
38. New York City Department of Transportation. (2013). www.nyc.gov
39. Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., & Khreis, H. (2016). Car-free cities: Pathway to healthy urban living. Environment International, 94, 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.05.032
40. OECD. (2015). www.oecd.org
41. OECD. (2024). Job creation and local economic development 2024: The geography of generative AI. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/83325127-en
42. Papa, E., Ferreira, A. (2021). Moving to access in transport planning: Identifying barriers and designing strategies. Urban Science, 5(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci5010005
43. Pisano, C. (2020). Strategies for Post-COVID Cities: An Insight to Paris En Commun and Milano 2020. Sustainability, 12(15), 5883. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155883
44. Pojani, D., & Stead, D. (2015). Sustainable urban transport in the developing world: Beyond megacities. Sustainability, 7(6), 7784–7805. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7067784
45. Porto City Council. (2020). https://www.cm-porto.pt/
46. Pucher, J., Buehler, R., & Seinen, M. (2010). Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and Re-appraisal of Cycling Trends and Policies. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(6), 451–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2010.03.003
47. Rahman, M., Deb, S., Strawderman, L., Smith, B., & Burch, R. (2020). Evaluation of transportation alternatives for aging population in the era of self-driving vehicles. IATSS Research, 44(1), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2019.05.004
48. Rausch, C., Laflamme, L., & de Rooij, S. E. (2017). Injurious falls and subsequent adverse drug events among elderly: A Swedish population-based matched case-control study. BMC Geriatrics, 17, 202. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0594-1
49. Rausch, M. K., Reimann, H., Schick, S., & Hille, K. (2017a). Age-related declines in reaction time and balance: Implications for pedestrian safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 98, 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.10.012
50. Ravensbergen, L., Liefferinge, M., Jimenez, I., Zhang, M., & El-Geneidy, A. (2022). Accessibility by public transport for older adults: A systematic review. Journal of Transport Geography, 103, 103408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103408
51. Ravensbergen, E., Van den Berg, V., Van Lieshout, P., & Van Heuvelen, M. J. G. (2022a). Exploring the link between mobility and mental health in older adults: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3584. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063584
52. Rupprecht Consult. (2019). SUMP guidelines – Second edition. https://sumps-up.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Tools_and_Resources/Publications_and_reports/Guidelines/SUMP_Decision_Maker_s_Summary_interactive_high.pdf
53. Ryan, J., & Pereira, R. H. M. (2021). What are we missing when we measure accessibility? Comparing calculated and self-reported accounts among older people. Journal of Transport Geography, 93, 103086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103086
54. Ryan, C., Smith, J. A., Johnson, M. L., Davis, R. P., & Lee, K. T. (2021a). Physical decline and mobility challenges in aging populations: A review. Gerontologist, 61(4), e244–e254. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab072
55. Sallis, James F., Cerin, Ester, Kerr, Jill, Chang, Ruth, Saelens, Brian E., Frank, Lawrence D., Sallis, James F. (2012). Physical activity in relation to urban environments: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine, 54(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.06.007
56. Satariano, William A., Schultz, Samantha A., Harris, Tanya B., Buchner, David M., Miller, David K., & Pahor, Mauro. (2020). Cognitive impairment and mobility limitations in older adults: A review. Journal of Aging and Health, 32(3–4), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264320958434
57. Shi, J., Liu, X., & Feng, Z. (2023). Age-friendly cities and communities and cognitive health among Chinese older adults: Evidence from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Studies. Cities, 132, 104072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.104072
58. Telepak, G. (2015). Urban Mobility Plan Vienna: Together on the Move; Thematic Concept (Werkstattbericht No. 155). Vienna City Administration, Municipal Department 18 – Urban Development and Planning.
59. Transport Authority for the Amsterdam Region. (2023). Mobility Policy Framework “Connecting through Diversity”: Part B – Elaboration.
60. Twardzik, E., Guralnik, J., & Falvey, J. R. (2024). Community mobility among older adults who are socioeconomically disadvantaged: Addressing the poverty penalty. Physical Therapy, 104(10). https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzad182
61. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). (2021). Guidelines for developing and implementing a sustainable urban mobility plan (SUMP) in Kosovo’s cities: First edition. UN-Habitat. https://unhabitat.org/guidelines-for-developing-and-implementing-a-sustainable-urban-mobility-plan-sump-in-kosovos-cities
62. Van Cauwenberg, J., Clarys, P., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Deforche, B. (2018). Physical environmental factors related to walking and cycling in older adults: A systematic review. Health & Place, 52, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.04.003
63. Wanner, M., Götschi, T., Martin-Diener, E., Kahlmeier, S., & Martin, B. W. (2012). Active transport, physical activity, and body weight in adults: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(5), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.01.030
64. Woodcock, J., Edwards, P., Tonne, C., Armstrong, B. G., Ashiru, O., Banister, D., Beevers, S., Chalabi, Z., Chowdhury, Z., Cohen, A., Franco, O. H., Haines, A., Hickman, R., Lindsay, G., Mittal, I., Mohan, D., Tiwari, G., Woodward, A., & Roberts, I. (2009). Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: Urban land transport. The Lancet, 374(9705), 1930–1943. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61714-1
65. World Health Organization (WHO). (2015). World report on ageing and health. https://www.who.int/
66. World Health Organization (WHO). (2018). Age-friendly cities and communities. https://www.who.int/
67. World Health Organization. (2024). Ageing and health. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health
68. Wu, X., Lee, H.-Y., Li, P.-H., Huang, C.-N., & Huang, Y.-M. (2023). Promoting self-regulation progress and knowledge construction in blended learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, wu1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231191125
69. Wulfhorst, G., Kroesen, M., & van Wee, B. (2022). Evaluation practices in sustainable urban mobility planning: Learning from Copenhagen. Sustainability, 14(23), 16041. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316041
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
There is no data available due to the nature of the paper.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Archives of Transport journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
