Accessibility Inequality Across Europe: A City Comparison of 15‑Minute Pedestrian Accessibility

The study examines disparities in pedestrian accessibility across 585 European cities (population ≥ 100 000) using the 15‑minute‑city framework, which requires key destinations to be reachable on foot or by bike within 15 minutes. Two core indicators are employed: Total Destinations (the absolute number of opportunities) and Variety (the diversity of opportunity types such as education, health, parks, retail). Results reveal pronounced inequality both between and within cities. While some nations (e.g., Switzerland, Ireland) display high accessibility scores, others (e.g., Sweden, Finland) lag behind. Population density correlates positively with total destinations but shows diminishing returns for variety. The authors argue that increasing the variety of accessible opportunities—rather than merely the sheer number of destinations—offers a more effective pathway to reduce accessibility inequality and advance sustainable urban mobility.

Supporting evidence

• Country‑level differences: Mean total destinations range from 17.5 (Sweden) to 136.4 (Switzerland); mean variety ranges from 2.9 (Sweden) to 8.5 (Ireland).
• City‑level spread: Total destinations per city vary from 3.3 to 593.4; roughly half of the cities have fewer than 50 destinations, while fewer than 10 % exceed 100. Variety scores span 1.18 (Kuopio, FI) to 9.90 (Islington, UK).
• Density relationship: Linear correlation between total destinations and population density ( r² = 0.56); exponential decay relationship for variety ( r² = 0.605).
• Inequality metrics: Population‑weighted Gini coefficients drop from 0.665 to 0.541 for total destinations and from 0.333 to 0.153 for variety when moving from low‑ to high‑variety cities, indicating that greater variety mitigates intra‑city inequality.

Key findings

1. Persistent inequality: Most European cities are not yet true 15‑minute cities; substantial gaps exist in pedestrian accessibility both across and within urban areas.
2. Variety beats quantity: Enhancing the variety of reachable opportunities reduces inequality more effectively than simply increasing the total number of destinations.
3. Diminishing returns of density: Higher population density improves total destinations but does not guarantee higher variety; beyond a certain threshold, additional density yields limited gains in diverse accessibility.
4. Policy implication: Urban planners should prioritise the provision of a diverse mix of services (education, health, leisure, retail) within 15‑minute walking distances and invest in pedestrian‑friendly infrastructure to close the accessibility gap.
5. Integration with public transport: Coupling active‑travel improvements with robust public‑transport networks amplifies overall accessibility and supports car‑dependency reduction.