Validation study reveals limited sustainability alignment in development licensing frameworks, highlighting that approval metrics still prioritize roadway capacity over green mobility.
The licensing of trip-generating developments (TGDs) determines how mobility impacts are assessed and which mitigation measures are required, yet procedures remain heterogeneous and largely focused on roadway performance. No instrument was identified to assess their adherence to sustainable urban mobility (SUM) principles. This study proposes a maturity-based protocol for that assessment. It comprises four dimensions, sixteen components, and three maturity levels: N1 conventional, N2 in transition, and N3 SUM-oriented. It derives from an integrative review of the literature and technical and institutional documents. Expert content validation yielded item-level indices of 0.86–1.00 and a scale-level index of 0.94. Inter-rater assessment showed 81.3% exact agreement and an ordinal Krippendorff’s alpha of 0.83. Applied to Rio de Janeiro, it classified five components at N1, ten at N2, and one at N3. Sustainable mobility is reflected in the regulatory vocabulary, in the declared scope of the study, in measures for pedestrians and cyclists, and in the financial instrument, without reaching the metrics that structure the approval decision. By shifting the unit of analysis to the regulatory procedure and presenting a diagnostic profile rather than an aggregate score, the protocol provides a basis designed for replication and comparison across municipal licensing systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sousa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: