Mobility and accessibility paradigms in Dutch policies: An empirical analysis


  • Ruben Akse Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University Nijmegen
  • Tom Thomas Department of Civil Engineering and Management, University of Twente
  • Karst Geurs University of Twente



accessibility, transport policy, paradigm


To promote sustainable urban development, transport policies need to change from a car-oriented mobility planning paradigm to an accessibility-based paradigm, integrating land-use and transport policies. This paper uses the concept of planning paradigms to describe the current status of municipal transport planning and problem framing. The dominant transport planning paradigm of 172 Dutch municipalities is determined, based on a conceptual framework with 24 mobility and accessibility planning criteria. Statistical analysis is then conducted to find linkages between the planning paradigm and transport, land-use, and institutional characteristics of the municipalities. We show that the mobility planning paradigm still dominates Dutch municipal transport planning, and the accessibility planning paradigm is mostly found in large cities and highly urban municipalities. However, we do find indications of slow change in the transport planning paradigms in Dutch municipalities, as older policy documents are more (car) mobility focused than newer policy documents. Further research is necessary to examine the evolution of the paradigm shift in municipal transport planning over time and what factors promote the realization of such a paradigm shift.

Author Biographies

Ruben Akse, Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University Nijmegen

PhD student

Tom Thomas, Department of Civil Engineering and Management, University of Twente

Assistant professor


Annema, J. A., Koopmans, C., & Van Wee, B. (2007). Evaluating transport infrastructure investments: The Dutch experience with a standardized approach. Transport Reviews, 27(2), 125–150. https://doi:10.1080/01441640600843237

Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73–80. https://doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005

Banister, D. (2011). The trilogy of distance, speed and time. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(4), 950–959. https;//doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.12.004

Boisjoly, G., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2017). The insider: A planners' perspective on accessibility. Journal of Transport Geography, 64, 33–43. https://doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.08.006

Caniglia, G., Luederitz, C., von Wirth, T., Fazey, I., Martín-López, B., Hondrila, K., . . . Lang, D. J. (2020). A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 4, 93–100. https://doi:10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z

Cervero, R. (1997). Paradigm shift: From automobility to accessibility planning. Urban Futures, 22(6), 9–20.

Dijst, M., Rietveld, P., & Steg, L. (2013). Individual needs and travel behavior. In B. van Wee, J. A. Annema, & D. Banister (Eds.), The transport system and transport policy: An introduction (pp. 19-50). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Ferreira, A., Beukers, E., & Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2012). Accessibility is gold, mobility is not: A proposal for the improvement of Dutch transport-related cost–benefit analysis. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 39(4), 683–697. https://doi:10.1068/b38073

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Geels, F. W. (2012). A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471–482. https://doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.021

Geurs, K. T., & Levine, J. (2015). Mind the gap: Barriers to the use of accessibility instruments. Paper presented at the NECTAR International Conference, June 14–16, Ann Arbor, MI.

Geurs, K. T., Zondag, B., de Jong, G., & de Bok, M. (2010). Accessibility appraisal of land-use/transport policy strategies: More than just adding up travel-time savings. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 15(7), 382–393. https://doi:10.1016/j.trd.2010.04.006

Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policy making in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296. https://doi:10.2307/422246

Handy, S. (2020). Is accessibility an idea whose time has finally come? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 83, 102319. https://doi:10.1016/j.trd.2020.102319

Harbers, A., Spoon, M., van Amsterdam, H., & van der Schult, J. (2019). Ruimtelijke dichtheden en functiemenging in Nederland (RUDIFUN). Den Haag: PBL

Harms, L., Bertolini, L., & Brömmelstroet, M. T. (2015). Performance of municipal cycling policies in medium-sized cities in the Netherlands since 2000. Transport Reviews, 36(1), 134–162. https://doi:10.1080/01441647.2015.1059380

Jensen, O. B. (2015). More than A to B: Cultures of mobilities and travel. In R. Hickman, M. Givoni, D. Bonilla, & D. Banister (Eds.), Handbook on transport and development (pp. 479-490). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Jones, P. (2012). The role of an evolving paradigm in shaping international transport research and policy agendas over the last 50 years. Paper presented at the 12th International Association for Travel Behavior Research in an Evolving World, December 13–18, Jaipur, India.

Jones, P. (2014). The evolution of urban mobility: The interplay of academic and policy perspectives. IATSS Research, 38(1), 7–13. https://doi:10.1016/j.iatssr.2014.06.001

Kanger, L., Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B., & Schot, J. (2019). Technological diffusion as a process of societal embedding: Lessons from historical automobile transitions for future electric mobility. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 71, 47–66. https://doi:10.1016/j.trd.2018.11.012

Kivimaa, P., Boon, W., Hyysalo, S., & Klerkx, L. (2019). Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 48(4), 1062–1075. https://doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.006

Koglin, T. (2015a). Organisation does matter – planning for cycling in Stockholm and Copenhagen. Transport Policy, 39, 55–62. https://doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.02.003

Koglin, T. (2015b). Vélomobility and the politics of transport planning. GeoJournal, 80(4), 569–586. https://doi:10.1007/s10708-014-9565-7

Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Levine, J., Grengs, J., & Merlin, L. A. (2019). From mobility to accessibility: Transforming urban transportation and land-use planning. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Levine, J., Grengs, J., Shen, Q., & Shen, Q. (2012). Does accessibility require density or speed? Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(2), 157–172. https://doi:10.1080/01944363.2012.677119

Litman, T. (2013). The new transportation planning paradigm. ITE Journal, 83(6), 20–28.

Lyons, G. (2018). Getting smart about urban mobility – Aligning the paradigms of smart and sustainable. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 115, 4–14. https://doi:10.1016/j.tra.2016.12.001

Marsden, G., Frick, K. T., May, A. D., & Deakin, E. (2011). How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in Northern Europe and North America. Transport Policy, 18(3), 501–512. https://doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.10.006

Martens, K. (2017). Transport justice - Designing fair transportation systems. New York, USA: Routledge.

May, A. D. (2012). Urban transport and sustainability: The key challenges. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 7(3), 170–185. https://doi:10.1080/15568318.2013.710136

Norton, P. (2015). Four paradigms: Traffic safety in the twentieth-century United States. Technol Cult, 56(2), 319–334. https://doi:10.1353/tech.2015.0065

Papa, E., Silva, C., Te Brömmelstroet, M., & Hull, A. (2015). Accessibility instruments for planning practice: A review of European experiences. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 9(3), 57–75. https://doi:10.5198/jtlu.2015.585

Pritchard, J. P., Stępniak, M., & Geurs, K. T. (2019). Equity analysis of dynamic bike-and-ride accessibility in the Netherlands. In K. Lucas, K. Martens, F. Di Ciommo, & A. Dupont-Kieffer (Eds.), Measuring transport equity (pp. 73-83). Elsevier.

Rouse, J. (2003). Kuhn's philosophy of scientific practice. In T. Nickles (Ed.), Thomas Kuhn (pp. 101-121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schwanen, T., Banister, D., & Anable, J. (2011). Scientific research about climate change mitigation in transport: A critical review. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(10), 993–1006. https://doi:10.1016/j.tra.2011.09.005

Smaal, M. (2012). Politieke strijd om de prijs van automobiliteit: De geschiedenis van een langdurend discours: 1895-2010. Delft: Eburon.

Stone, J. (2013). Continuity and change in urban transport policy: Politics, institutions and actors in Melbourne and Vancouver since 1970. Planning Practice & Research, 29(4), 388–404. https://doi:10.1080/02697459.2013.820041

Stopher, P., & Stanley, J. (2014). Introduction to transport policy - A public policy view. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Straatemeier, T., & Bertolini, L. (2019). How can planning for accessibility lead to more integrated transport and land-use strategies? Two examples from the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 1–22. https://doi: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1612326

SWOV. (2020, 15-04). Verkeersdoden in Nederland. SWOV-factsheet. Retrieved from

Te Brömmelstroet, M., Silva, C., & Bertolini, L. (2014). Assessing usability of accessibility instruments, COST Action TU1002. Brussels: COST Office

Tennøy, A., Hansson, L., Lissandrello, E., & Næss, P. (2016). How planners’ use and non-use of expert knowledge affect the goal achievement potential of plans: Experiences from strategic land-use and transport planning processes in three Scandinavian cities. Progress in Planning, 109, 1–32. htpps://doi:10.1016/j.progress.2015.05.002

Van Der Brugge, R., Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2005). The transition in Dutch water management. Regional Environmental Change, 5(4), 164–176. https://doi:10.1007/s10113-004-0086-7

van Geet, M. T., Lenferink, S., Busscher, T., & Arts, J. (2021). Finding the right tools for the job: Instrument mixes for land use and transport integration in the Netherlands. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 14(1), 125–149. https://doi:10.5198/jtlu.2021.1710

van Wee, B., Banister, D., Annema, J. A., & Geurs, K. T. (2013). Transport and the environment. In B. van Wee, J. A. Annema, & D. Banister (Eds.), The transport system and transport policy: An introduction (pp. 227-253). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Van Wijk, D. (2019, 20-2). Een nieuwe manier om verkiezingsuitslagen in kaart te brengen in een versnipperd politiek landschap. Retrieved from

von Schönfeld, K. C., & Bertolini, L. (2017). Urban streets: Epitomes of planning challenges and opportunities at the interface of public space and mobility. Cities, 68, 48–55. https://doi:10.1016/j.cities.2017.04.012

Wegman, F. (2013). Traffic safety. In B. van Wee, J. A. Annema, & D. Banister (Eds.), The transport system and transport policy: An introduction (pp. 254-280). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Zhao, C., Carstensen, T. A., Nielsen, T. A. S., & Olafsson, A. S. (2018). Bicycle-friendly infrastructure planning in Beijing and Copenhagen — between adapting design solutions and learning local planning cultures. Journal of Transport Geography, 68, 149–159. https://doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.03.003




How to Cite

Akse, R., Thomas, T., & Geurs, K. (2021). Mobility and accessibility paradigms in Dutch policies: An empirical analysis. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 14(1), 1317–1340.