Critical debates on the 15-minute city: A systematic content analysis of the literature

Abstract

In response to the urban challenges exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the ‘15-minute city’ concept has emerged as a promising concept for fostering sustainable and equitable urban environments by promoting local living. Despite broad endorsement from politicians, policymakers, and practitioners, the 15-minute city has attracted growing critical scrutiny regarding its theoretical foundations and real-world applicability. This study explores critical debates on the 15-minute city through a theoretical-practical-impact lens, drawing on a systematic content analysis of 102 academic publications on the 15-minute city published between 2020 and mid-2024. The findings identify key insights to respond to critiques and guide the concept toward fulfilling its original vision of more sustainable, equitable, and resilient urban environments, while also outlining directions for future research. Key insights include: (a) adopting flexible, context-specific approaches that account for the political, social, economic, and spatial realities and dynamics of different urban areas; (b) establishing robust governance frameworks that support participatory, bottom-up, and representative planning processes; (c) integrating principles of social justice into policymaking to prevent urban gentrification and social displacement; and (d) developing innovative measurement tools to more effectively measure evaluate the social and spatial dimensions of the concept. • Offers a systematic content analysis of 102 publications on the 15-minute city concept. • Explores critical debates on the 15-minute city through a theorical-practical-impact lens. • Proposes insights to refine 15-minute city theory and practice to foster more sustainable, equitable, and resilient cities.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.