Who is living a local lifestyle? Towards a better understanding of the 15-minute-city and 30-minute-city concepts from a behavioural perspective in Montréal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
· Identifies which groups of households are living a 15- or 30-minute-city lifestyle in Montréal, Canada. · The 15- and 30-minute city planning paradigms are hardly reachable within the North American context. · Cities interested in implementing an x-minute city approach must think critically about designing a framework that is both feasible and desirable in the local context. Policy makers worldwide are increasingly embracing the idea of a “15-Minute City” or “30-Minute City” as part of their sustainable-development strategies. These planning concepts propose an urban environment where residents can meet their essential needs within a short trip from their home using active modes of travel. However, there is limited understanding about the replicability and usefulness of these concepts in influencing the travel behaviour of residents to meet the 15- or 30-minute-city reality. Drawing from a travel-behaviour survey and open-source geospatial data from Montréal, Canada, this article seeks to identify which groups of households are living a 15- or 30-minute city lifestyle to understand the compatibility of the x-minute city planning approach with the local North American context. Findings indicate that the 15- and 30-minute city paradigms provide goals that are hardly reachable in the context of a large North American city. Very few households are able to conduct all their daily travel within close proximity to their home, even if the built environment was substantially altered. These findings suggest that the x-minute city is not a one-size-fits-all model. The findings from this study can be of interest to transport professionals aiming to apply the x-minute city as it highlights the challenges associated to meeting such target in a North American context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".